.'  tit '- 


UUSB    LIUKAKY 


SCIENTIFIC  SOPHISMS. 


A  REVIEW  OF  CURRENT  THEORIES 
CONCERNING   ATOMS,   APES,   AND  MEN. 


BY 


SAMUEL    WAINWRIGHT,    D.£>, 

AUTHOR  OF 

"CHRISTIAN  CERTAINTY,"  "THB  MODERN  AYKKNUS,"  fn, 


NEW  YORK : 
FUNK    &    WAGNALLS, 

10  AND  12  DEY  STREET, 
1883. 


"The  true  Shekinah  is  Man." — Chrysostom. 

"  If  a  man  is  a  materialist,  we  Germans  think  he  is  not  edu- 
cated."—Prof.  Tholuck. 

"  It  is  the  first  duty  of  a  hypothesis  to  be  intelligible." — Prof. 
Huxley. 


SCIENTIFIC  SOPHISMS. 


CONTENTS. 


ANALYTICAL  OUTLINE vii 

I. 
THE  RIGHT  OF  SEARCH I 

II. 
EVOLUTION ,, 

III. 
"A  PUERILE  HYPOTHESIS" 33 

IV. 
"  SCIENTIFIC  LEVITY  "..._.  45 

V. 
A  HOUSE  OF  CARDS       ...  61 


SOPHISMS        .       . 


VI. 

• 75 

VII. 


PROTOPLASM 


VIII. 
THE  THREE  BEGINNINGS      .... 


vi  Contents. 

IX. 
THE  THREE  BARRIERS  .  »      •  169 


XIII. 

ANIMA  MUNDI 


APPENDIX.       •       •      • 


PAfiF 


X. 

ATOMS      ......       r       ;  ,87 


XI. 
......      •      .      .   203 

XII. 

MEN     .    .         .    .    .    «    •       225 


•      •  f    251 

299 


ANALYTICAL  OUTLINE  OF  CONTENTS, 


CHAPTER  I. 
THE  RIGHT  OP  SEARCH. 

AGNOSTICISM  :  and 
Gnosticism  : 

Its  Pretensions. 
Prof.  Clifford— 

His  "  Ethics  of  Religion"; 

His  new  divinity. 
Prof.  Tyndall— 

His  assumptions  | 

His  admissions. 
Their  relation  to 
MATERIALISTIC  ATHEISM  : 
Is  it  true  ? 
Is  it  demonstrable  ? 
Is  it  Scientific  ? 


CHAPTER  IL 

EVOLUTION. 
EVOLUTION  : 
Theories  of : 
Three  main  varieties  : 

The  Theistic, 
The  Atheistic, 
The  Agnostic. 

Their  rektion  to  the  doctrine  of 
vti 


viii     Analytical  Outline  of  Contents. 

Development : 

Mr.  Darwin's  "  view  "  ;  and  his  Opinion. 

His  "  opinion  "  may  be  questioned  ;  and 
His  "  view  "  has  not  been  shown  to  be  true. 
Is  strongly  Theistic, 
Is  shown  by  Professor  Mivart  to  be 

"  Not  The  Origin  of  Species,"  and 
"Not  antagonistic  to  Christianity." 
The  Theistic  Doctrine  01  Evolution  : 

(Its  three  main  Varieties) 
Maintained  by  Mr.  Darwin  ;  but 
Opposed  by  Professors  Huxley  and  Tyndall. 
Prof.  Tyndall  "abandons,"  once  lor  all  "the  conception 

of  creative  acts." 
Prof.  Huxley  excludes  "the  intervention  or  any  but  what 

are  termed  secondary  causes." 
Evolution  : 

As  strictly  denned, 
As  popularly  understood. 
The  validity  of  the  Facts 

Independent  of  every  Theory  as  to  their  Cause. 
The  Phenomenal  Sequence, 

Not  the  Ideal  Hypothesis, 
A  Universal  Law. 
The  Ideal  Hypothesis,  which 

"  Derives  man  in  his  totality  from  the  inter- 
action 01  organism  and  environment  through 
countless  ages  past." 


CHAPTER  III. 

"A  PUERILE  HYPOTHESIS." 
Erolntion  : 

"  Baldest  of  all  philosophies  " 
Involves  two  points. 
I.  ASCENSIVE  DEVELOPMENT  : 
Negatived  by 

"The  positively  ascertained  truths  of  Palaeon- 
tology." 


Analytical  Outline  of  Contents.       ix 

[I.  THE  TRANSMUTATION  OF  SPECIES. 

"  Not  Proven  "  (Prof.  Huxley j. 
"  Of  direct  and  positive  testimony  " 
"There  is  no  fragment  whatever  "  (Dr.  Elam). 
Mr.  Darwin's  admissions 

"  Fatal  "  to  his  theory 
Condemned  by  Prof.  Mivart. 


CHAPTER  IV. 
"SCIENTIFIC  LEVITY.* 

AGNOSTIC  EVOLUTION  : 

An  Unverified  Hypothesis 

Based  on  two  subordinate  hypotheses 

Equally  unverified, 

(1)  Spontaneous  Generation. 

(2)  The  Transmutation  of  Species. 
SPONTANEOUS  GENERATION. 

"  Does  life  grow  out  of  dead  matter?  "  (Prof.  Whewell.) 
"  It  is  a  result  absolutely  inconceivable."     (Mr.  Darwin.) 
"Not  supported  by  any  evidence."     (Dr.  Carpenter.) 
"  Scientific  Levity."    (Humboldt.) 
From  Matter  to  Life : 

The  attempts  to  bridge  the  chasm 

Have  all  failed. 
The  "nucleated  vesicle" 

Is  on  the  wrong  side  of  the  gulf. 
The  "  chemico-electric  operation  " 

Is  a  mere  "  supposition." 
The  "  Protogenes  of  Haeckel,"  and 

Dr  Elam's  refutation  of  Mr.  Spencer. 
The  "line  of  demarcation 

between  the  organic  and  the  inorganic 

Is  as  wide  as  ever." 
Chemistry :  Its  century  of  triumphs. 

Its  one  conspicuous  Failure.     Hence 


x        Analytical  Outline  of  Contents. 

SPONTANEOUS  GENERATION  is 

"  An  astounding  hypothesis  "  (Dr.  Carpenter) 
"Vitiated  by  error  "  (Prof.  Tyndall),  and 

"  Utterly  discredited."  (Virchow.) 

CHAPTER  V. 
A  HOUSE  OF  CARDS. 

Agnostic  Evolution  :  Not  scientifically  true. 

"  A  flimsy  framework  of  hypotheses."         (Dr.  Elam.) 
Devoid  of  "  experimental  demonstration."    (Tyndall.) 

Its  Fundamental  Proposition : 

Condemned  by  Scientific  Authorities 

"  The  older  and  honoured  chiefs  in  Natural  Science  ;" 

(Darwin.) 
"A  minority  of  minds  of  high  calibre  and  culture." 

•  (Tyndall.) 

The  New  Syllogisms  : 

"  Probable  "  ;  "  provisional  "  ;  "  uncertain." 
"  Reason  to  suppose  : "  (Mr,  Spencer) 

"  I  can  imagine  :"  (Prof.  Tyndall) 

"  It  is  conceivable."  (Mr.  Darwin) 

CHAPTER  VI. 

SOPHISMS. 

I.  Prof.  Haeckel's  Genealogy  : 

Its  hypothetical  completeness  :  Dependent  on 

Its  Continuity — "in  nubibus." 

Refuted  by  Du  Bois  Reymond. 
His  Fundamental  Postulates : 

Incapable  of  Proof. 

Monera  ;  Gastreada  ;  Amphioxus. 
Accepted  by  Mr.  Huxley.     And  yet 

Mr.  Huxley  admits  that 

The  doctrine  of  Evolution  involves  the  assump- 
tion of 

Spontaneous  Generation  ;  while  this  last  has 
"  No  experimental  evidence  in  its  favour." 

Supported  by  "no  valid  or  intelligible  reason." 


Analytical  Outline  of  Contents.       xi 

II.  BIOGENESIS  : 

Harvey,  and  Francesco  Redi. 
Paradoxical  position  of  Mr.  Huxley. 

(1)  As  a  Biogenist,  he  holds  that 

"  All  living  matter  has  sprung  from  pre-existing 
living  matter." 

(2)  As  an  Abiogenist,  he  thinks  that 

Life   may   "some   day  be  artificially  brought 
together." 

(3)  He  thinks  this  has  never  yet  been  done.    But  yet 

(4)  If  he  had  been  living  in  the  remote  Past 

He  should  expect  to  have  seen  it  done. 

III.  Prof.  Tyndall's  Fallacies 

(1)  The  "  impulse  inherent  in  primeval  man." 

(2)  "  The  possible  play  of  molecules  in  a  cool- 

ing planet." 

(3)  "  Physical  theories  beyond  the  pale  of  ex- 

perience." 

(4)  His  imagining  the  unimaginable. 

(a)  The  passage  from  physics  to  conscious- 
ness 

Is  "  unthinkable."    And  yet  he  says 
(6)  "  By  an  intellectual  necessity 

I  cross  the  boundary." 

(5)  He  tells  us  of 

(a)  "  The  chasm  between  the  two  classes 

of  phenomena." 

(b)  He  declares  this  chasm  to  be 

"  Intellectually  impassable  "  ;  and  yet 

(c)  He  proclaims  his  belief  in 

"  The  Continuity  of  Nature." 

(6)  The  Continuity  of  an  "impassable  chasm" 

(a)  A  chasm  "intellectually  impassable"; 

and  yet 

(b)  "  By  an  intellectual  necessity" 
He  crosses  it. 

IV.  The  Homers  of  Modern  Materialism  * 

Buchner,  Oken,  Haeckel,  Huxley. 

" —  quandoque  bonus  dormitat  Homerus." 


xii      Analytical  Outline  of  Contents. 


CHAPTER  VII. 
PROTOPLASM. 

Origin  of  the  word. 

The  Physiological  Cell  Theory. 
The  several  5  tages  which  marked  the 
Application  of  the  word. 

Dujardin,  Von  Mohl,   Cohn,  Remak,  Max  Schultze. 
Prof.  Huxley's  employment  of  it  to  denote 
"  The  Physical  Basis  of  Life  :  " 

"The  one  kind  of  matter  which  is  common  to  all 

living  beings,"  and 

Ultimately  resolvable  into  the  same  chemical  con- 
stituents. 
Ulterior  Assumptions  : 

By  which  Protoplasm,  From  being  the  "basis" 

Becomes  the  "  Matter  of  Life." 
That  all  organisms  consist  alike  of  the  same  "matter 

of  life." 

That  this  "  matter  of  life  "  is  due  to  Chemistry  alone. 
That  all  the  activities  of  life, — 

Thought,  Conscience,  Will, 
Arise  solely  from, — 

"The  arrangement  of  the  mo- 
lecules of  ordinary  matter." 
MATERIALISM  of  Mr.  Huxley's  doctrine. 

In  what  sense  disavowed  by  him. 
Refuted  by  Dr.  Stirling. 

His  admission,  that  "Most  undoubtedly  the  terms 
of  his  propositions  are  distinctly  materialistic." 
E.g.,  "The  thoughts  to  which  I  am  now  giving 
utterance,  and  your  thoughts  regarding  them, 
are  but  the  expression  of  molecular  changes  in 
that  matter  of  life  which  is  the  source  of  our 
other  vital  phenomena." 
Mr.  Huxley's  doctrine,  then,  is  "distinctly  material- 

istic  " 
But,— 


Analytical  Outline  of  Contents,     xiii 

Is  IT  TRUE  ? 

"  I  know  of  no  form  of  negation  sufficiently  explicit, 
comprehensive,  and  emphatic,  in  which  to  reply 
to  this  question."  (Dr.  Elam) 
I.  It  is  in  no  sense  true   that  Protoplasm    "  breaks  up," 

as  Prof.  Huxley  says  it  does. 

II.  (CO2),   (H2O),  and  (NH3)  cannot,  by  any  combination, 
be  brought  to  represent 

C36H26N4O10,  which  is  the  equivalent  of  protein, 
or  protoplasm. 

III.  It    is  not    true   that    when   carbonic  acid,    water,  arid 

ammonia  disappear, 

An  "  equivalent   weight  of  the  matter  of  life " 
makes  its  appearance. 

IV.  In  the   two   processes    which    Mr.  Huxley   regards    as 

identical 

(i.e.,  the  formation  of  water  and  of  protoplasm) 
"  There  is  no  resemblance  whatever." 
V.  The  proposition  that  Life  is  a  product  of  Protoplasm 

Is  demonstrably  untrue. 

VI.  The  proposition  that  life  is  a  property  of  Protoplasm 
Is  equally  untrue. 

(Contrast  between  " aquosity "  and  "vitality.") 
VII.  Martinus  Scriblerus  Redivivus. 

The  "development"  of  meat-jacks. 
VIII.  The  identity  of  Protoplasm,  "living  or  dead," 
Assumed  by  Mr.  Huxley. 
Denied  by  the  Germans. 

Involves  a  whole  train  of  Effects  without  a  Cause. 
IX.  The  fulcrum  on  which  Mr.  Huxley's  Protoplasmic 

Materialism  rests 
Is  a  single  inference 
From  a  chemical  analogy. 
This  analogy  has  two  references,  and  fails  in  both 

of  them. 

The  relation  of  the  organic  [protoplasm]  to  the 

inorganic  [water] 

Is  not  an  analogy,  but  an  antithesis. 
The  gulf  between  Death  and  Life. 


xiv     Analytical  Oiitline  of  Contents. 

X.  The  entire  Theory  ,.  ^  „ 

Summed  up  in  two  Proposition*. 
"  Protoplasm  is  the  clay  of  the  Potter  " 
The  bricks  are  .the  same  (says  Mr.  Huxley) 

Because  the  clay  is  the  same.^ 
But— 

Is  the  clay  the  same  ? 

Can  it  be  identified  ?  as  Mr.  Huxley  affirms. 
Examination  of  the  alleged  three-fold  unity,  Faculty, 

Form,  Substance. 
Instead  of  "identity  "  there  is 

"  An  infinite  diversity." 

XI.  Protoplasm  not  convertible 

As  alleged  by  Mr.  Huxley. 

Functions,  too,  are  inconvertible,  and 
are 

Independent  of  mere  chemical  com- 
position. 
XII.  As  of  the  Bricks,  then,  so  of  the  Clay : 

It  is  not  identical 

It  is  not  convertible 

It  includes — 

"  An  Infinitude  of  various  Kinds." 

XIII.  Mr.  Huxley's  Variations : 

A  complete  Revolution  of  Opinion. 

XIV.  His  "subtle  influences" 

Invoked  to  supersede  "Vitality." 
The  Bases  of  Physical  Life  =  (?) 
The  Physical  Basis  of  Life 
Cf.  "  The  iron  basis  of  the  candle,"  with 
"  The  basis  of  the  iron  candle  "  1 
XV.  His  Refutation  by  Dr.  Beale. 

"  I  doubt   if  in  the  whole  range  of 
modern  science  it  would  be  possible 
to  find  an  assertion  more  at  variance 
with  facts  familiar  to  physiologists." 
XVI.  His  former  maintenance  of 

"Vitality"  and  "Inertia." 

XVII.  Dogmatism  of  his  assertions  :  Contrasted  with  Magnl* 
tude  of  his  admissions. 


Analytical  Outline  of  Contents,      xv 

XVIII.  Dr.  Elam's  exposure  of  his  Chemistry. 

"  Proiessor    Huxley's    '  Chemistry   of 
Life '  has  no  foundation  except  that 
ot  deliberate  and  reiterated  assertion." 
XIX.  "Exoretuo." 

"  That  such  verbal  hocus-pocus  should  be  re- 
ceived as  science  will  one  day  be  regarded  as 
evidence  ot  the  low  state  of  intelligence  in  the 
nineteenth  .century." 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE  THREE  BEGINNINGS. 

Evolution  not  Eternal. 

The  "First  Beginnings     (Lucretius). 
Importance  of  the  Fact : 

There  was  "  a  first  start  " 

There  was  more  than  one. 

1.  i.  MATTER. 

How  ?  Where  ?  Whence  ?  did  it  Begin 
Its  Nature 
Its  Properties 
Its  Powers 

From  what  Source  acquired? 

"  In  the  Beginning  ?  " 
"The  Atoms  eternally  falling." 

Why  "tailing?" 

In  an  eternity  "not  eternal. 
What  Force  was  that  which  moved  them  ? 
What  Will  was  that  which  directed  them  ? 

2.  Force : 

Operating  in  a  given  Order :  and 
Controlled  by  "  Definite  Laws." 
ORDER  :  FORCE :  LAW  : 

How  came  they  to  Begin  ? 

3.  *'  Mutual  Interaction  : 

Of  the  molecules  of  the  Primitive  Nebulosity  " 
The  sole  and  exclusive  cause  of  "the  whole  world ; 
living  and  not  living." 


xvi     Analytical  Outline  of  Contents. 

When  these  assumptions  have  been  granted  : 

That  the  Nebulosity  was  real 

That  it  was  Primitive 

That  its  constitutent  molecules  were  not  all  imaginary 

That  the  existing  world  is  the  result  of  their  interaction 
Then,  the  first  question  is  more  urgent  than  before : 
"  In  The  Beginning  : "  What  was  that 

4.  First  Cause  : 

Equal,  not  only  to  the 
Origination  of  Matter  and  of  Force,  but 
Equal  also  to  the 

Origination  of  Matter  thus  constituted,  and  of 
Force  thus  adjusted  ? 

5.  Evolution  :  is  thus  seen  to  be  the  measure  of 

Involution. 

Whatever  has  been  evolved  in  the  Effect 

Was  previously  involved  in  the  Cause. 

6.  Causa  Causarum  :  What  was  that  ? 

In  "  The  First  Beginning  "  ? 
II.  LIFE. 

"  Of  the  causes  which  have  led  to  the  origina- 
tion of  living  matter,  it  may  be  said  that  we 
know  absolutely  nothing."  (Huxley) 
But,  however  inscrutable  the  mode, 
There  is  no  question,  nor  any  room  for  question 

As  to  the  Fact : 

.  "  Living  matter  "  was  "  once  originated." 
Life  had  a  BEGINNING. 

Still  more    inscrutable  is  the   Mystery   which 
shrouds 

The  First  Emergence  of 
III   THE  SELF-CONSCIOUS  MIND. 

Mr.  J.  S.  Mill  on  the  Existence  of  Mind. 

Huxley,  Tyndall,  and  Spencer,  on  "States  of 
Consciousness." 

"Consciousness,"   says  Prof.  Huxley,  is  "un- 
accountable." 

*'  No  one  can  prove  that  mind  and  life  are  in  any 
way  related  to  chemistry  and  mechanics." 


Analytical  Outline  of  Contents,  xvii 

Consciousness  and  Physics  are  incommensurable. 
"  Thought  BEGAN  to  be."     How  ? 
" Intelligence,  self-conscious,  emerged" 
WHENCE  ? 


CHAPTER  IX. 

THE  THREE  BARRIERS. 

Mr.  Darwin  on 

The  adaptation  of  organs, 
The  transmutation  of  animals, 
The  Origin  of  Instinct, 
The  ant,  and  the  honey-bee. 
His  Theory  of  Neuters  : 

Fertile  parents  transmit, 

through  fertile  progeny, 
A  tendency  to  produce  sterility, 

incapable  of  further  production. 
His  oversight  of 

The  evidence  of  Design. 
His  Remarkable  Omissions. 
His  ingenious  substitution  of 

The  "conceivable  "  for  the  actual. 
His  habitual  avoidance  of 

The  profounder  marvels  of  Nature,  and 
Their  only  true  solvent — 

The  ordination  of  God. 
The  Three  Barriers  of 

Comparative  Anatomy. 
I.  THE  BACKBONE  : 

The  basis  of  Strength. 
An  impassable  Barrier 
Until  it  can  be  shewn 

How  a  butterfly  could  become  a  bird, 
Or  a  snail,  a  serpent, 
Or  a  star-fish  acquire  the  skeleton  of 
a  salmon  or  a  shark. 


xviii  Analytical  Outline  of  Contents. 

II.  THE  BREAST  : 

The  type  of  Tenderness 

Until  it  can  be  shewn 

How  an  animal  that  never  was 
suckled  stumbled  on  the  capacity 
of  giving  what  it  never  got. 

III.  THE  BRAIN  : 

The  measure  of  Capacity. 
.     The  Human  Brain  is  Pleno-cerebral : 
All  other  Brains  are  Manco-cerebral. 
To  all  Men  the  pleno-cerebral  type  is  common  : 
To  Man,  as  such,  it  is  PECULIAR. 
The  lowest  Human  Brain  has  the  latent  franchis* 
of 

Progressive  Reason : 
All  other  Brains  have  the  rigid  circumscription  of 

Unprogressive  Instinct. 
No  brute  is  susceptible  of  Human  Culture  ; 
No  human  infant  is  not  so. 
Between  these  two  the  Difference  is  Immeasurable 


CHAPTER  X. 

ATOMS. 

"  The  Atoms  are  the  First  Beginnings." 
What,  then,  are  these  Atoms  ? 

"  Ultimate  homogeneous  units  :** 

Lange.     Mr.  Herbert  Spencer. 

"  One  ultimate  form  of  Matter." 
Dr.  Tyndall's  rejection  of 

Mr.  Spencer's  dictum. 
Heterogeneity  of  the  Atoms. 

Chemical  Phenomena 

Not  to  be  deduced  from 

Mechanical  conditions. 
Their  grouping  :  Their  varieties  : 

In  shape  ;  In  kind. 
Their  Motions,  Forces,  Affinities  : 

Inadequate  to  the  problem  proposed. 


Analytical  Outline  of  Contents,    xix 

The  "Atoms "are 

NOT  the  Beginning. 

They  have  "all  the  characteristics  of 
MANUFACTURED  ARTICLES." 

Sir  John  Herschel. 
14  No  Theory  of  Evolution  can  be  formed  to  account  for  them." 

Professor  Maxwell.     Professor  Pritchard. 
Sir  William  Thomson  :— 

"The  assumption  of  atoms  can  explain  no  pro- 
perty of  body  which  has  not  previously  been 
attributed  to  the  atoms  themselves." 


CHAPTER  XL 

APES. 

Professor  Tyndall's  postulate  : — 

That  human  ancestors  were  not  human. 
Mr.  Darwin's : — 

"A  series  of  forms  graduating  insensibly 
From  some  ape-like  creature 
To  man  as  he  now  exists."     But 
(i.)  The  series  is  not  a  series. 

It  has  no  continuity,  and  no  concatenation, 
(ii.)  It  does  not  "  graduate  insensibly." 

It  exhibits   " breaks":   "wide,-  sharp,   and 

denned." 
These  breaks  "  incessantly  occur  in  all  parts 

of  the  series." 

(iii.)  The    "ape-like   creature"   is   wholly   hypo- 
thetical. 

It  is  absolutely  non-existent. 
There  is  no  evidence  that  it  ever  was  other- 
wise. 
Professor  Huxley's 

Cautious  and  conditional  generalizations 
Adverse  to  Mr.  Darwin's  theory. 


xx     Analytical  Outline  of  Contents.     * 

Professor  Haeckel's 

"  Rogues  in  buckram." 

Destitute  of  any  single  living  representative. 

Destitute  of  fossil  evidence  of  their  former  existence. 
The  Chordonia 

"Developed  THEMSELVES"  1 
The  admissions  of  its  advocates,  are 

Fatal  to  The  Theory. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

MEN. 

Prof.  Huxley's  dicta  on 

"  The  question  of  questions  for  mankind." 
Contrast  between  Men  and  Apes  : 

As  to  cerebral  structure. 

As  to  cerebral  weight. 

As  to  "  the  great  gulf  in  intellectual  power 

between  lowest  man  and  highest  ape." 

As  to  "the  structural  differences 

which  separate  Man  from  the  Gorilla." 
No  intermediate  Link 

bridges  over  the  gap  between  Homo  and  Troglo- 
dytes." 
Paradoxes  : 

"  Qui-qua-versal  propositions." 
"The  UNMEASURABLE  and  practically  infinite  divergence 

Of  the  Human  from  the  Simian  Stirps." 

Its  ' '  Primary  Cause." 
Psychical  Distinctions. 
Structural  Distinctions. 
Mr.  Darwin's  Testimony  to 

"  The  great  break  in  the  organic  chain 

Between  man  and  his  nearest  allies,  which 

Cannot  be  bridged  over 

By  any  extinct  or  living  species." 
Prof.  Mivart's  Refutation  of  this  theory. 

Man,  the  apes,  and  the  half-apes 

Cannot  be  arranged  in  a  single  ascending  series. 


Analytical  Outline  of  Contents.      xxi 

The  Lines  of  Affinity  existing  between  different  Primates 

Construct  a  network :  but  not  a  ladder. 
The  Survival  of  the  Fittest. 

But  the  fittest  (according  to  the  Theory) 

Have  not  survived. 

The  half-apes  are  with  us  to  this  day : 

The  half-men  are  nowhere. 
Mr.  Wallace's  Demonstration 

That  the  Origin  of  Man  is  to  be  found  only  in 

An  Act  of  Special  Creation. 
Mr.  Mivart's  Conclusion : 

That  Mr.  Darwin  "has  UTTERLY  FAILED 

In  the  only  part  of  his  work  which 
is  really  important." 


CHAPTER  XIII. 
ANIMA  MUNDI. 

"A  Soul  in  all  things." 

The  Inorganic  World. 

Phenomena  of  Crystallization. 

Prof.  Tyndall's  Fallacy ; 

Pyramid  builders  :  Architect :  Controlling  Power. 
Prof.  Tyndall's  belief  that 

"  The  formation  of  a  plant  or  an  animal 

Is  a  purely  mechanical  problem." 
Prof.  Huxley's  assertion  that 

"  A  mass  of  living  protoplasm 

Is  simply  a  molecular  machine." 
His  resort  to  "subtle  influences," 

i.e.,  to  Vital  Force. 
His  assertion  that 

"A  particle  of  jelly"  guides  forces. 

Refuted  by  Dr.  Beale. 
Two  Points  involved  in  these  assertions  : — 

I.  The  introduction  of  Life  ; 

II.  The  manifestations  of  Mind. 


xxii    Analytical  Outline  of  Contents. 

I.  VITAL  ACTION  :  In  contrast  with  physico-chemical  action 
Is  peculiar  to  living  beings. 
Haeckel's  Testimony  : — 

"  The  phenomena  which  living  things  pre- 
sent have  no  parallel  in  the  mineral 
world." 
Du  Bois  Reymond's  : — 

"It  is  futile  to  attempt   by  chemistry  to 
bridge  the  chasm  between  the  living 
and  the  not-living. " 
No  machine  can  grow. 
No  machine  can  produce  machines  like  itself. 


II.  MlND.  I.   "  Horologity  ":  and  the  "  watch-force  ": 
A  combination  of  many  forces,  and 
Their  adjustment  to  a  particular  PURPOSE. 
Its  seat  is  in 

The  Intelligence  which  conceived  that  com- 
bination ;  and  in 
The  Will  which  gave  it  effect. 
This  evidence  of  Design  is  shewn  in  Universal 

Nature, 
a.  The  Shell  of  the  Barnacle. 

3.  The  Electric  Ray. 

"It  is  impossible  to  conceive  by  what  steps 
these  wondrous  organs  have  been  pro- 
duced." (Mr.  Darwin.) 

4.  The  new-born  Kangaroo.  * 

"  Irrefragable  evidence  of  Creative  fore- 
sight." (Prof.  Owen.) 

5.  The    Eye :    "  With    all   its    INIMITABLE    con- 

trivances" (Mr.  Darwin)  (Prof.  Pritchard.) 
Nature  is  full  of  Plan. 

Yet  she  plans  not. 

Where  Science  assumes  a  Use, 

Religion  affirms  an  Author. 
The  Question,  For  what? 
Involves  the  further  question,  From  whom! 


Analytical  Outline  of  Contents,    xxiii 

Mr.  Ruskin,  on  The  Great  First  Cause 

"Personal":  and   "  A  Supporting  Spirit  in  all 

things." 

The  Formative  Cause. 
The  Living  Power. 
What  is  it  ?  and  Whence  / 
"There  is  no  answer." 
Ascensive  Life. 
Language  :  Peculiar  to  Man  : 

"Thinker  of  God's  thoughts  after  Him." 
What  is  the  Origin  of  Mind  ? 
The  genesis  of  THOUGHT. 

"  Thaumaturgic."  (Carlyle.) 
"  No  mere  function  of  The  Brain." 
"  A  World  by  itself." 
VOLITION.     Whence  ? 

A  machine  not  mechanical. 
"  An  automaton  endowed  with  free  will." 
CONSCIOUSNESS. 

"A  rock  on  which  Materialism  must  inevitably 

split."  (Tyndall.) 

Perfectly  "  unaccountable."  (Huxley.) 
"  Brain-waves."  (Ruskin.) 
SENSE  OF  RESPONSIBILITY. 

"  Duty  I      ...      WHENCE    THY    ORIGINAL? 

(Kant.) 

THE  MAJESTIC  SPECTACLE  OF  THE  UNIVERSE 
Is  a  spectacle  for  the  eye  of  Reason. 
Natural  Agents  working  for  ends  which  they  them" 

selves  cannot  perceive. 

But ' '  Every  house  is  builded  by  some  man  "  \ 
And 

f  HE  THAT  BUILT  ALL  THINGS,   IS  GOD." 


CHAPTER  I. 
THE  RIGHT  OF  SEARCH. 

"  GOD  created  man  "  ?  No  such  thing !  The 
monads  developed  him.  "The  heavens  declare 
the  glory  of  God  "  ?  Far  from  it  :  "  they  de- 
clare only  the  glory  of  the  astronomer  !"  "  We 
have  now  no  need  of  the  hypothesis  of  God." 

These  utterances,  and  such  as  these,  startling 
alike  to  reverence  and  to  faith,  are  the  merest 
common  places  of  modern  agnosticism.  In- 
stead of  being,  as  once  they  were  regarded,  the 
terminus  ad  quern,  the  ultimate  goal,  to  which 
unbelief  was  tending,  tlfey  have  long  since  been 
left  behind  as  a  mere  terminus  a  quo,  a  tempo- 
rary station  for  a  new  point  of  departure.  The 
scepticism  which  doubted  has  given  place  to  the 
dogmatism  which  denies.  "  Honest  doubt"  has 
been  supplanted  by  the  clamour  of  a  positive 
self-assertion.  A  positivism  of  which  Comte 
knew  nothing  has  usurped  the  authority,  while 
renouncing  the  functions,  of  scientific  enquiry. 


26  Scientific  Sophisms. 

In  a  word,  Agnosticism  is  no  more,  and  Gnosti- 
cism reigns  in  its  stead. 

Agnosticism  made  candid  confession  of  its 
ignorance.  Gnosticism  parades  its  pretensions 
to  knowledge.  The  former  did  not  know :  the 
latter  is  quite  sure.  The  Divine  existence  is 
now  declared  to  be  not  only  unnecessary ;  it  is 
absolutely  unreal.  God  has  no  existence,  even 
hypothetically,  except  as  the  creature  of  the 
human  imagination.  The  hand  may  well  trem- 
ble that  writes  it,  and  the  ears  may  tingle  that 
hear,  yet  it  has  been  both  written  and  said — in 
modes  that  demand  more  attention  than  they 
have  hitherto  received — There  is  no  God  \  ex- 
cept such  as  man  has  made.  "  The  dim  and 
shadowy  outlines  of  the  superhuman  deity  fade 
slowly  away  from  before  us  ;  and  as  the  mist  of 
his  presence  floats  aside,  we  perceive  with  greater 
and  greater  clearness  the  shape  of  a  yet  grander 
and  nobler  figure — of  Him  who  made  all  gods 
and  shall  unmake  them." l 

Who  then  is  He,  this  "grander  and  nobler 
figure,"  this  great  and  only  potentate  "who 
made  all  gods  and  shall  unmake  them"?  this 
"  human "  who  dethrones  "  the  superhuman 
deity"  ?  It  is  man  himself.  "  From  the  dim 

1  Professor  Clifford  :  "  The  Ethics  of  Religion,"  in  The 
Fortnightly  Review,  vol.  xxii.  New  series,  p.  52. 


The  Right  of  Search.  27 

dawn  of  history,  and  from  the  inmost  depth  of 
every  soul,  the  face  of  our  father  Man  looks  out 
upon  us  with  the  fire  of  eternal  youth  in  his 
eyes,  and  says,  '  Before  Jehovah  was,  I  am  !' "  l 

And  yet,  this  "  Man  our  father,"  was  once  an 
Ape:  and,  before  that,  "a  jelly-bag."  That 
jelly-bag  (which  "  made  all  gods  and  shall  un- 
make them  ")  sucking  in  water  and  sticking  to 
a  stone,  has  advanced  to  its  present  august 
condition  by  "a  principle  of  development"  and 
"a  process  of  evolution."  It  is  true  indeed 
that  the  principle  is  one  which  nobody  has  ever 
proved,  and  the  process  is  one  which  nobody 
has  ever  witnessed  ;  but  woe  to  the  unlucky 
wight  who  dares  to  doubt  their  validity,  or  who 
fails  to  recognise  in  "  Mr.  Charles  Darwin,  the 
Abraham  of  scientific  men."  2 

"  Most  of  you,"  says  Professor  Tyndall,  "  have 
been  forcecl  to  listen  to  the  outcries  and  de- 
nunciations which  rang  discordant  through  the 
land  for  some  years  after  the  publication  of 
Mr.  Darwin's  '  Origin  of  Species.'  Well,  the 
world — even  the  clerical  word — has  for  the 

1  Professor  Clifford  :  "  The  Ethics  of  Religion,"  in  The 
Fortnightly  Review,  vol.  xxii.  New  series,  p.  52.  Vide 
in/rd:  Appendix,  Note  A. 

1  Prof.  Tyndall  :  "  Science  and  Man,"  in  The  Fort- 
nightly Re-view,  voL  xxii.  New  series,  p.  615. 


28  Scientific  Sophisms. 

most  part  settled  down  in  the  belief  that  Mr. 
Darwin's  book  simply  reflects  the  truth  of 
Nature  :  that  we  who  are  now  '  foremost  in  the 
files  of  time'  have  come  to  the  front  through 
almost  endless  stages  of  promotion  from  lower 
to  higher  forms  of  life."  l 

"The  most  part":  but  what  of  the  rest,  the 
remaining  part  ?  Let  it  stand  in  awe.  If  it 
cannot  be  convinced  it  can  be  denounced.  And 
it  is  denounced  accordingly.  It  is  more  base 
and  stupid  than — "  even  the  clerical  world." 
He  who  belongs  to  it  is  ipso  facto  stigmatized 
as  ignorant  and  incompetent.2  He  is  "  unstable 
and  weak," s  "  a  brawler  and  a  clown."  * 

1  Prof.  Tyndall :  "  Science  and  Man,"  in  The  Fort- 
nightly Review,  vol.  xxii.  New  series,  p.  611. 

'  The  great  and  venerated  name  of  Von  Baer  is  asso- 
ciated by  Haeckel  with  the  idea  of  "harmless  senile 
garrulity."  Adolf  Bastian  is  a  "  Privy  Councillor  of 
Confusion";  Du  Bois-Raymond  is  a  "  rhetorical  phrase- 
spinner,"  if  not  a  Professor  of  Voluntary  Ignorance  ; 
while  Carl  Semper  is  a — a  person  regardless  of  truth, 
expressed  in  a  brief  word  not  usually  heard  among 
gentlemen.  "Haeckel,"  says  Dr.  Elam,  "has  probably 
never  heard  of  the  insignificant  names  of  Owen,  Mivart, 
and  Agassiz,  or  they  would  doubtless  have  been  remem- 
bered in  the  catalogue  of  wretched  smatterers  who  have 
come  under  his  signal  disapproval." 

3  Prof.    Tyndall's     "Address    delivered    at    Belfast." 
Longmans,  1874,  p.  63. 

4  Fortnightly  Review,  voL  xxii.  p.  614. 


The  Right  of  Search.  29 

But  "methinks  the  lady  doth  protest  too 
much."  Were  these  denunciations  more  dis- 
passionate they  might  seem  more  disinterested. 
As  it  is,  they  are  too  strenuous  to"  be  forcible  ; 
too  loud  to  be  effective.  Nor  is  this  the  worst 
They  have  another  fault  more  fatal  still.  They 
are  altogether  irrelevant.  They  do  not  hit, 
they  merely  miss,  the  mark.  They  are  beside 
the  question*  For  the  question  is  as  to  the 
nature  and  character  of  the  new  doctrine.  And 
with  that  question  the  merits  or  demerits  of 
advocates  and  assailants  are  not  concerned. 
*  Materialistic  Atheism,"  we  are  told,  "  is  in  the 
air."  So  be  it :  but  then  this  same  materialistic 
atheism  is  either  true  or  it  is  not.  If  it  is  not 
true,  let  that  be  shown,  and  it  will  fall  without 
assailants.  If  it  is  true,  let  that  be  shown,  and 
it  will  then  have  no  need  of  advocates.  No  one 
thinks  it  necessary  to  take  the  field  in  defence  of 
the  properties  of  conic  sections ;  and  the  foun- 
dations of  the  venerable  pons  asinorum  remain 
unmoved  and  unimpaired  from  age  to  age. 
Why  then,  in  propounding  that  very  open 
secret,  their  latest  discovery,  should  the  demi- 
gods of  the  scientific  Olympus  forsake  their 
philosophic  calm  for  the  irritating  gusts  of 
irascible  acerbity  ? 

Tantsene  animis  ccelestibus  iras  ? 


30  Scientific  Sophisms. 

They  make  their  boast  of  truth.  They  pro- 
claim aloud  their  contempt  of  consequences. 
The  boast  would  have  been  more  becoming  if 
it  had  been  less  exclusive.  Those  who  make 
it  will  have  a  better  claim  to  be  heard  when 
they  have  learned,  with  the  modesty  of  science, 
to  moderate  the  pretensions  by  which  they 
arrogate  to  themselves  a  monopoly  of  the  virtue 
which  they  say  is  theirs.  When  they  tell  us 
that  "  Mr.  Charles  Darwin,  the  Abraham  of 
scientific  men,"  is  "  a  scholar  as  obedient  to  the 
command  of  truth  as  was  the  patriarch  to  the 
command  of  God,"  l  we  are  under  no  necessity, 
as  we  certainly  have  no  inclination,  to  dispute 
the  accuracy  of  the  assertion.  But  when  to  this 
it  is  added  that  to  reject  Mr.  Darwin's  hypo- 
thesis, and  those  of  his  coadjutors  and  com- 
mentators, is  "  to  purchase  intellectual  peace  at 
the  price  of  intellectual  death,"3  we  ask  for 
the  evidence  in  support  of  this  assertion.  That 
evidence  has  yet  to  be  produced.  Is  it  pro- 
ducible ?  It  is  at  all  events  not  forthcoming. 
Until  the  truth  of  these  hypotheses  has  been 
established  it  is  not  possible,  in  the  name  of 
truth,  to  demand  our  acceptance  of  them.  And 
until  then,  as  always,  our  position  in  relation  to 

1  Fortnightly  Review,  vol.  xxii.  p.  615. 
1 "  The  Belfast  Address,"  ut  sup.,  p.  63. 


TJie  Right  of  Search.  3 1 

them  must  be  determined,  as  it  is  now  deter- 
mined, by  that  paramount  consideration,  our 
reverence  for  truth. 

The  necessity  of  meeting  this  conviction  is 
not  unfelt  by  those  to  whom  it  is  opposed  ;  and 
their  perception  of  its  force  is  shown  by  the 
remarkable  admission  contained  in  their  reply. 
It  is  the  ideal  Lucretian  himself  who  is  the 
speaker : — 

!  "  It  is  not  to  the  point  to  say  that  the  views 
of  Lucretius  and  Bruno,  of  Darwin  and  Spencer 
may  be  wrong.  Here  I  should  agree  with  you, 
deeming  it  indeed  certain  that  these  views  will 
undergo  modification.  But  .the  point  is,  that 
whether  right  or  wrong,  we  ask  the  freedom  to 
discuss  them."1  "As  regards  these  questions 
science  claims  unrestricted  right  of  search."  3 

Agreed.  We  desire  nothing  better.  The 
case  must  be  argued  before  it  is  decided.  And 
it  may  not  be  prejudged.  What  is  certain  is, 
"that  the  views  of  Lucretius  and  Bruno,  of 
Darwin  and  Spencer  may  be  wrong  " :  "  certain 
that  these  views  will  undergo  modification." 
Certain  therefore  that  "the  world, — even  the 
clerical  world," — in  accepting  these  wrong  views, 
"  has  for  the  most  part "  gone  wrong  too,  and, 

1  "The  Belfast  Address,"  ut  sup.',  p.  64. 
1  Ibid.,  p.  63. 


32  Scientific  Sophisms. 

sooner  or  later,  not  without  harm  and  loss,  will 
have  to  return  from  the  error  of  its  ways. 

Meantime,  the  inquiry  to  which  we  are  chal- 
lenged, though  not  without  complex  relations,  is 
in  itself  very  simple.  It  is  not  to  be  influenced 
by  opinion.  It  is  not  to  be  biassed  by  pre- 
judice. It  is  not  to  be  decided  by  authority. 
It  is  directed  to  the  investigation  of  facts.  It 
must  be  guided,  not  by  great  names,  but  by 
great  principles.  It  must  be  kept  distinct  from 
other,  though  collateral,  inquiries ;  and  it  must 
be  patiently  pursued  to  no  uncertain  issue. 
This  Materialistic  Atheism,  propounded  in  the 
name  of  Science :  Is  it  true  ?  Is  it  demon- 
strable ?  Is  it  Scientific  ? 


CHAPTER    II. 

EVOLUTION. 

IT  stumbles  at  starting.  Of  Evolution  as  al- 
leged, there  are  several  varieties  ;  and  the  theory 
is  at  fault  among  them.  A  choice  must  be  made, 
and  the  choice  is  not  easy.  Natural  Selection, 
if  it  were  not  merely  the  nominal  designation 
of  an  unreal  entity,  might  here  render  important 
service;  but  as  it  is,  is  useless.  And  to  spon- 
taneous selection  the  choice  is  encumbered  with 
difficulties.  Of  these  difficulties  it  is  not  the 
least  that,  by  the  theory,  spontaneous  selection 
is  impossible :  spontaneity  is  non-existent,  save 
in  imagination.  Since  this  little  difficulty  is 
not  (by  the  theory)  to  be  surmounted,  it  must 
be  evaded ;  and  when  it  has  been  evaded  the 
labour  of  selection  begins. 

The  varieties  from  which  the  selection  must 
be  made  may  be  classed  in  three  main  divisions ; 
or,  in  other  words,  notwithstanding  the  protests 
of  those  Darwinians  who  deny  the  existence 


34  Scientific  Sophisms. 

of  species,  they  may  all  be  referred  to  three 
species :  the  theistic,  the  atheistic,  and  the 
agnostic. 

Evolutionists  of  the  first  class  admit,  while 
those  of  the  second  deny,  the  existence  of  a 
Divine  Creator.  By  those  of  the  third  class, 
that  existence,  while  not  by  any  means  admitted, 
is  yet  not  explicitly  denied.  It  is  simply 
ignored.  They  "  have  no  need  of  the  hypothesis 
of  God."  Foremost  among  the  leaders  of  this 
latter  class  are  Mr.  Spencer  and  Professors 
Huxley,  Tyndall,  and  Bain.  Less  cautious  or 
more  candid  are  Carl  Vogt,  Ernst  Haeckel,  and 
Buchner,  as  representatives  of  atheistic  develop- 
ment ;  while  the  theistic,  its  antithesis,  is  vindi- 
cated by  names  of  no  less  note  than  those 
of  Sir  John  Herschel,  Sir  William  Thomson, 
Professors  Owen,  Dawson,  Gray,  Dr.  Carpenter, 
and,  at  least  in  his  earlier  writings,  Mr.  Charles 
Darwin  himself. 

The  existence  of  these  varieties  is  a  fact  at 
once  significant  and  instructive.  Our  present 
concern,  however,  is  not  with  these,  except  so 
far  as  they  serve  to  illustrate  or  demonstrate 
the  nature  of  the  base  which  they  have  in 
common.  That  doctrine  of  Development  which 
they  all  affirm  :  what  is  it  ?  What  are  its  pre- 
tensions ?  Where  are  its  proofs  ? 


Evolution.  35 

Let  "  the  Abraham  of  scientific  men  "  speak 
first. 

"  It  is  interesting,"  he  says,1  "to  contemplate 
an  entangled  bank,  clothed  with  many  plants 
of  many  kinds,  with  birds  singing  on  the  bushes, 
with  various  insects  flitting  about,  and  with 
worms  crawling  through  the  damp  earth,  and 
to  reflect  that  these  elaborately-constructed 
forms  so  different  from  each  other,  and  depen- 
dent on  each  other  in  so  complex  a  manner, 
have  all  been  produced  by  laws  acting  around 
us."  "There  is  grandeur  in  this  view  of  life, 
with  its  several  powers,  having  been  originally 
breathed  into  a  few  forms  or  into  one." 

The  grandeur^  however,  is  questionable.  It 
may  be  nothing  more  than  a  figment  of  the 
imagination,  a  mere  matter  of  taste,  or  of 
opinion  ;  but  even  if  it  were  matter  of  fact,  it  is 
not  a  matter  with  which  we  have  any  concern. 
Our  enquiry  as  to  "this  view  of  life"  is  not, 
Can  it  be  made  to  look  grand  ?  but,  Can  it  be 
shown  to  be  true  ? 

At  present,  this  has  not  been  shown.  Even 
Mr.  Darwiin  himself  does  not  profess  to  "  know," 
he  merely  "  believes,"  the  truth  of  the  doctrine 
he  propounds.  "  I  believe,"  these  are  his  words, 

1  "Origin  of  Species."  First  Edition  (Murray  :  1859), 
chap.  xiv.  pp.  489,  490. 


36  Scientific  Sophisms. 

"that  animals  have  descended  from  at  most 
only  four  or  five  progenitors,  and  plants  from 
an  equal  or  lesser  number.  Analogy  would 
lead  me  one  step  further,  namely,  to  the  belief 
that  all  animals  and  plants  have  descended  from 
some  one  prototype.  But  analogy  may  be  a  de- 
ceitful guide.  Nevertheless  ail  living  things  have 
much  in  common,  .  .  .  Therefore  I  should 
infer  from  analogy  that  probably  all  the  organic 
beings  which  have  ever  lived  on  this  earth  have 
descended  from  some  one  primordial  form  into 
which  life  was  first  breathed."1 

But  this  "belief,"  which  Mr.  Darwin  thinks 
"probable,"  this  "inference"  derived  from 
"  analogy,"  has  never  been  verified.  How  could 
it  be  verified,  when  its  most  ardent  apostles 
assure  us  that  it  may,  after  all,  "  be  wrong,"  and 
will  "certainly"  have  to  "undergo  modifica- 
tion ?"*  But  even  if  it  had  been  verified  it  is 
not  "materialism,"  it  is  not  "atheism,"  it  is 
not  "agnosticism."  It  is  the  very  reverse  of 
all  these,  for  it  is  a  manifesto  of  absolute 
"theism." 

"In  my  book  on  the  'Genesis  of  Species,'" 
says  Professor  St.  George  Mivart,3  "  I  had  in 

1  "  Origin  of  Species."     First  Edition,  chap.  xiv.  p.  484. 

3  Prof.  Tyndall,  ut  sup.,  p.  7. 

1  "Lessons  from  Nature."     Murray,  1876,  p.  429. 


Evolution.  3  7 

view  two  main  objects.  My  first  was  to  show 
that  the  Darwinian  theory  is  untenable,  and  that 
'Natural  Selection  '  is  not  the  origin  of  species. 
My  second  was  to  demonstrate  that  nothing 
even  in  Mr.  Darwin's  theory  (as  put  forth  before 
the  publication  of  his  'Descent  of  Man,')  and, 
d  fortiori,  nothing  in  Evolution  generally,  was 
necessarily  antagonistic  to  Christianity." 

Reserving  for  further  examination  the  first 
of  these  propositions,  "that  the  Darwinian 
theory  is  untenable,"  it  may  be  observed  as  to 
the  second,  that  of  the  theistic  doctrine  of 
Evolution  there  are  theoretically  three  main 
varieties  :  (i)  That  which  limits  the  supernatural 
action  in  the  origination  of  species  to  the  crea- 
tion of  primordial  cells.  (2)  That  which,  while 
maintaining  the  intervention  of  direct  or  special 
creation,  regards  the  origination  of  species  as 
being  for  the  most  part  effected  indirectly,  i.e., 
through  the  agency  of  natural  causes.  (3)  That 
which  regards  God  as  immanent  in  natural  law, 
and  recognises  in  all  phenomena  the  result  of 
present  Divine  action. 

In  his  earlier  writings,  the  theism  of  Mr. 
Darwin  is  most  explicit.  Thus,  for  example, 
when  speaking  of  certain  birds  found  in  Tierra 
del  Fuego,  he  says,  "when  finding,  as  in  this 
case,  any  animal  which  seems  to  play  so  insignifi- 

C 


38  Scientific  Sophisms. 

cant  a  part  in  the  great  scheme  of  nature,  one 
is  apt  to  wonder  why  a  distinct  species  should 
have  been  created ;  but  it  should  always  be 
recollected  that  in  some  other  country  perhaps 
it  is  an  essential  member  of  society,  or  at  some 
former  period  may  have  been  so." l  And  again  : 
In  his  description  of  the  Passage  of  Cordillera, 
he  says,  "  I  was  very  much  struck  with  the 
marked  difference  between  the  vegetation  of 
these  eastern  valleys  and  that  of  the  opposite 
side  :  yet  the  climate,  as  well  as  the  kind  of 
soil,  is  nearly  identical,  and  the  difference  of 
longitude  very  trifling.  The  same  remark  holds 
good  with  the  quadrupeds,  and  in  a  lesser  degree 
with  the  birds  and  insects."  "This  fact,"  he 
adds,  "is  in  perfect  accordance  with  the  geo- 
logical history  of  the  Andes  ;  for  these  moun- 
tains have  existed  as  a  great  barrier  since  a 
period  so  remote  that  whole  races  of  animals 
must  subsequently  have  perished  from  the 
face  of  the  earth.  Therefore,  unless  we  sup- 
pose the  same  species  to  have  been  created 
in  two  different  countries,  we  ought  not  to 
expect  any  closer  similarity  between  the  organic 
beings  on  opposite  sides  of  the  Andes,  than 

1  "  Narrative  of  the  Surveying  Voyages  of  H.M.'s  Ships 
Adventure  and  Beagle"    London,  1839.     Vol.  iii. 


Evolution*  39 

on  shores  separated  by  a  broad  strait  of  the 
sea."  i 

And  to  take  but  one  other  instance :  In  con- 
cluding his  review  of  the  causes  of  extinction 
of  certain  animals  in  Patagonia,  he  says, — "  We 
see  that  whole  series  of  animals,  which  have 
been  created  with  peculiar  kinds  of  organi- 
zation, are  confined  to  certain  areas  ;  and  we  can 
hardly  suppose  these  structures  are  only  adapta- 
tions to  peculiarities  of  climate  or  country ;  for 
otherwise,  animals  belonging  to  a  distinct  type, 
and  introduced  by  man,  would  not  succeed  so 
admirably  even  to  the  extermination  of  the 
aborigines.  On  such  grounds  it  does  not  seem 
a  necessary  conclusion,  that  the  extinction  of 
species,  more  than  their  creation,  should  exclu- 
sively depend  on  the  nature  (altered  by  physical 
changes)  of  their  country."  3  In  these  passages 
we  have  not  only  the  assertion  of  species  as  are 
established  distinction  in  animal  life,  we  have 
also  the  further  assertion  that  these  "distinct 
species,"  "  with  peculiar  kinds  of  organization," 
are  to  be  attributed  to  "  Creation "  as  their 
cause,  and  not  "  to  peculiarities  of  climate  or 
country." 

1  "  Narrative  of  the  Surveying  Voyages  of  H.M.'s  Ships 
Adventure and  Beagle?  London,  1839.  Vol.  iii.  pp.  399, 400. 
3  {bid.,  p.  212. 


4O  Scientific  Sophisms. 

But  in  his  later  works,  the  theism  thus  articu- 
lately pronounced  is  conspicuous  chiefly  by  its 
absence.  At  the  same  time  it  is  not  expressly 
excluded.  And  on  this  account  the  agnostic 
and  atheistic  leaders  take  him  roundly  to  task, 
notwithstanding  his  Abrahamk  dignity.  Thus, 
for  instance,  Professor  Tyndall : — 

"Diminishing  gradually  the  number  of  pro- 
genitors, Mr.  Darwin  comes  at  length  to  one 
'primordial  form;'  but  he  does  not  say,  as  far 
as  I  remember,  how  he  supposes  this  form  to 
have  been  introduced.  He  quotes  with  satis- 
faction the  words  of  a  celebrated  author  and 
divine,  who  had  '  gradually  learnt  to  see  that  it 
is  just  as  noble  a  conception  of  the  Deity  to 
believe  He  created  a  few  original  forms,  capable 
of  self-development  into  other  and  needful 
forms,  as  to  believe  that  He  required  a  fresh 
act  of  creation  to  supply  the  voids  caused  by 
the  action  of  His  laws.'  What  Mr.  Darwin 
thinks  of  this  view  of  the  introduction  of  life 
I  do  not  know.  But  the  anthropomorphism, 
which  it  seemed  his  object  to  set  aside,  is  as 
firmly  associated  with  the  creation  of  a  few 
forms  as  with  the  creation  of  a  multitude. 
We  need  clearness  and  thoroughness  here. 
Two  courses  and  t\vo  only  are  possible.  Either 
let  us  open  our  doors  freely  to  the  conception 


Evolution.  4 1 

of  creative  acts,    or,   abandoning   them,   let   us 
radically  change  our  notions  of  Matter."1 

Professor  Tyndall,  as  is  well  known,  adopts 
the  latter  of  these  alternatives,  and  discerns  in 
Matter  "the  promise  and  potency  of  all  terres- 
trial life."  3  To  do  this,  however,  is,  as  he  him- 
self declares,  to  "abandon,"  once  for  all,  "the 
conception  of  creative  acts." 

Has  Mr.  Darwin  abandoned  that  conception  ? 
If  he  has  not,  then  he  lacks  "  clearness  and 
thoroughness  "  —  "  father  of  scientific  men n 
though  he  be.  So,  at  least,  says  Professor 
Tyndall,  and  Professor  Huxley  goes  still  further. 

Mr.  Huxley's  utterances  on  this  subject  pos- 
sess a  special  interest  from  the  eulogy  pro- 
nounced on  him  as  the  accredited  "  expounder  " 
of  the  Darwinian  doctrine.  Thus,  at  Belfast, 
when  introducing  his  summary  of  "  The  Origin 
of  Species,"  Professor  Tyndall  said, — 

"  The  book  was  by  no  means  an  easy  one  ; 
and  probably  not  one  in  every  score  of  those 
who  then  attacked  it  had  read  its  pages  through, 
or  were  competent  to  grasp  its  significance  if 
they  had.  I  do  not  say  this  merely  to  discredit 
them ;  for  there  were  in  those  days  some  really 

1  "  Address  delivered  before  the  British  Association  at 
Belfast."     Longmans,  1874,  pp.  53,  54. 
»  Ibid.,  p.  55. 


42  Scientific  Sophisms. 

eminent  scientific  men,  entirely  raised  above 
the  heat  of  popular  prejudice,  willing  to  accept 
any  conclusion  that  science  had  to  offer,  pro- 
vided it  was  duly  backed  by  fact  and  argument, 
and  who  entirely  mistook  Mr.  Darwin's  views. 
In  fact,  the  work  needed  an  expounder ;  and 
it  found  one  in  Mr.  Huxley.  I  know  nothing 
more  admirable  in  the  way  of  scientific  exposi- 
tion than  those  early  articles  of  his  on  the  origin 
of  species.  He  swept  the  curve  of  discussion 
through  the  really  significant  points  of  the 
subject,  enriched  his  exposition  with  profound 
original  remarks  and  reflections,  often  summing 
up  in  a  single  pithy  sentence  an  argument 
which  a  less  compact  mind  would  have  spread 
over  pages."1 

Now  the  pithy  sentence  with  which  we  are 
here  concerned  is  this  : — 

"  The  improver  of  natural  knowledge  abso- 
lutely refuses  to  acknowledge  authority  as  such. 
For  him,  scepticism  is  the  highest  of  duties, 
blind  faith  the  one  unpardonable  sin.  The  man 
of  science  has  learned  to  believe  in  justification, 
not  by  faith,  but  by  verification."  8 

And  with  this  Professor  Tyndall  agrees: 
"Without  verification  a  theoretic  conception  is 

1  "  Address,"  ut  snp.,  p.  38. 

*  "Lay  Sermons."    Macmillan,  1871,  p.  18. 


Evolution.  43 

a  mere  figment  of  the  intellect."  Torricelli, 
Pascal,  and  Newton  were  distinguished  by  their 
"  welding  of  rigid  logic  to  verifying  fact."  "  If 
scientific  men  were  not  accustomed  to  demand 
verification  .  .  .  their  science,  instead  of 
being,  as  it  is,  a  fortress  of  adamant,  would  be 
a  house  of  clay."  "  Newton's  action  in  this 
matter  is  the  normal  action  of  the  scientific 
mind." 1  "  There  is  no  genius  so  gifted  as  not 
to  need  control  and  verification."  * 

What  then  becomes  of  "the  Abraham  .of 
scientific  men  "  ?  In  the  "  Origin  of  Species  " 
Mr.  Darwin  tells  us  repeatedly,3  that  it  would 
be  "  fatal "  to  his  theory  if  it  should  be  found 
that  there  were  characters  or  structures  which 
could  not  be  accounted  for  by  "  numerous, 
successive,  slight  modifications";  and  tnis  can- 
did admission  is  supplemented  in  the  "Descent 
of  Man,"  *  by  another  equally  candid  : — 

1  "  Fragments  of  Science."    Longmans,  1871,  pp.  59, 
62. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  ill. 

3  See  especially,  (First  Edition,)  p.  189,  where,  after 
attempting  to  explain  the  origin  of  the  eye,  he  says,  "  If 
it  could  be  demonstrated  that  any  complex  organ  existed, 
which  could  not  possibly  have  been  formed  by  numerous, 
successive,  slight  modifications,  my  theory  would  abso- 
lutely break  down. 

*  Murray,  1871,  vol.  ii.  p.  387. 


44  Scientific  Sophisms. 

"  No  doubt  man,  as  well  as  every  other 
animal,  presents  structures  which,  as  far  as  we 
can  judge  with  our  little  knowledge,  are  not 
now  of  any  service  to  him,  nor  have  been  so 
during  any  former  period  of  his  existence, 
either  in  relation  to  his  general  condition  of 
life,  or  of  one  sex  to  the  other.  Such  struc- 
tures cannot  be  accounted  for  by  any  form  of 
selection,  or  by  the  inherited  effects  of  the  use 
and  disuse  of  parts." 

Here,  then,  we  have  the  fullest  recognition  of 
the  validity  of  objections  which  are  absolutely 
fatal  to  his  whole  doctrine.  But  with  this 
recognition,  what  becomes  of  "  verification  "  ? 

Mr.  Darwin's  doctrine,  however,  constitutes  a 
very  small  part  of  that  "  theoretic  conception  " 
which,  under  the  name  of  Evolution,  is  now 
declared  by  Professor  Huxley  to  be  no  longer 
"a  matter  of  speculation  and  argument,"  but 
on  the  contrary,  has  "  become  a  matter  of  fact 
and  history."  "  The  history  of  Evolution,"  he 
adds,  "as  a  matter  of  fact,  is  now  distinctly 
traceable.  We  know  it  has  happened,  and  what 
remains  is  the  subordinate  question  of  how  it 
happened." l 

It  is  to  be  observed,  however,  that  the  "  Evo- 

1  "  Address  at  Buffalo,"  August  25th.  Reported  in 
The  Times  of  Sept.  14,  1876. 


Evolution.  45 

lution  "  of  which  Mr.  Huxley  makes  this  affirm- 
ation, is  something  very  different  from  the 
indefinite  nondescript  which  in  popular  writings 
is  often  designated  by  the  same  term.  Not 
unfrequently  "  evolution "  means  simply  pro- 
gress or  advancement.  It  is  even  used  when 
nothing  more  than  growth  is  intended.  It  is 
employed  as  if  it  were  identical  with  "  natural 
selection,"  or  "  transmutation,"  or  any  other 
mode  of  "  development."  But  with  Mr.  Huxley, 
evolution  is  something  more  than  the  emer- 
gence of  the  chick  from  the  egg,  or  the  oak  from 
the  acorn,  or  the  frog  from  the  tadpole.  It  is  not 
a  mere  increase  of  bulk,  nor  is  it  restricted  to 
any  particular  process,  nor  has  it  any  special 
aim.  It  is  a  change  from  simplicity  to  com- 
plexity ;  from  incoherence  and  indefiniteness  to 
their  opposites. 

Thus,  for  instance,  the  nebular  hypothesis 
supposes  the  evolution  of  the  planetary  bodies 
from  incoherent  atoms,  which  come  not  merely 
into  mutual  relation,  but  which  also  in  that 
process  become  grouped  together  in  such  a  way 
that  the  nascent  mass  becomes  complex,  con- 
sists of  parts.  Again  :  the  homogeneous  proto- 
plasm in  which  all  organized  beings  commence, 
shows,  when  under  favourable  conditions,  first 
the  elements  of  tissues.  These  elements  are 


46  Scientific  Sophisms. 

afterwards  grouped  into  tissues,  and  the  tissues 
are  associated  into  organs.  The  "indifferent" 
matter  is  differentiated  in  various  degrees,  and 
the  animal  and  vegetable  series  show  many 
grades  of  difference. 

Thus  .the  Protamoeba  never  reaches  to  the 
formation  of  tissues ;  the  Hydra  has  tissues, 
but  few  organs  ;  and,  ascending  in  the  series,  the 
sharks,  complex  as  is  their  organization,  exhibit 
a  less  thorough  differentiation  of  their  hard 
parts,  which  are  chiefly  cartilaginous,  than  do 
mammals,  in  which  cartilage  is  subordinate  to 
bone.  But  the  evolution  of  the  more  complex 
from  the  more  simple  organisms  does  not  neces- 
sarily form  a  linear  series ;  probably  it  never 
does  so.  Nor  does  evolution  imply  change  of 
matter  as  well  as  of  the  relations  of  its  parts ; 
fresh  matter  is  not  essential  to  it,  since  the 
phenomena  which  it  includes  are,  as  matter  of 
fact,  rearrangements  of  that  which  was  already 
existing. 

Such  are  the  principal  facts  regarding  evolu- 
tion ;  and  from  these  it  is  evident  that  the 
phenomena  themselves  are  absolutely  indepen- 
dent of  any  and  of  every  theory  as  to  their 
cause.  Thus  understood  and  thus  limited, 
Evolution, — i.e.,  the  phenomenal  sequence,  not 
the  ideal  hypothesis — is  a  law  the  operation 


Evolution.  47 

of  which  is  traceable  throughout  every  depart- 
ment of  nature. 

Mr.  Herbert  Spencer's  definition  of  it  is 
equally  clear  and  concise :  "  Evolution  is  a 
change  from  an  indefinite,  incoherent  homo- 
geneity, to  a  definite,  coherent  heterogeneity  ; 
through  continuous  differentiations  and  integra- 
tions." ! 

Its  absolute  universality  of  operation  he  thus 
expresses :  "  Whether  it  be  in  the  development 
of  the  Earth,  in  the  development  of  Life  upon 
its  surface,  in  the  development  of  Society,  of 
Government,  of  Manufactures,  of  Commerce,  of 
Language,  of  Literature,  Science,  Art,  this  same 
advance  from  the  simple  to  the  complex, 
through  successive  differentiations,  holds  uni- 
formly. From  the  earliest  traceable  cosmical 
changes  down  to  the  latest  results  of  civilization, 
we  shall  find  that  the  transformation  of  the 
homogeneous  into  the  heterogeneous,  is  that  in 
which  Evolution  essentially  consists."  a 

In  this  last  sentence  we  have  not  merely 
the  "  transformation "  "  in  which  evolution 
essentially  consists  ; "  we  have  also  the  assump- 

1  "  First   Principles."     Williams   &    Norgate,  1862,  p. 
216.     A    subsequent   definition    is    given    below.     See 
Appendix,  Note  B. 

2  Ibid.,  pp.  148,  149. 


48  Scientific  Sophisms. 

tion  that  "  the  latest  results  of  civilization M 
have  been  evolved,  in  the  way  of  necessary  and 
inevitable  consequence,  from  "  the  earliest  trace- 
able cosmical  changes."  Human  life,  with  all  its 
inexhaustible  possibilities,  has  been  evolved  from 
life  infra-human.  The  life  of  the  lower  animals, 
like  that  of  plants,  was  in  the  first  instance 
evolved  from  non-living  matter  ;  as  that  matter 
itself  was  evolved  from  "  cosmic  vapour." 

Professor  Tyndall,  as  we  have  seen,  tells  us 
that  "  the  world — even  the  clerical  world — has 
for  the  most  part  settled  down  in  the  belief  that 
Mr.  Darwin's  book  simply  reflects  the  truth  of 
Nature :  that  we  who  are  now  '  foremost  in  the 
files  of  time '  have  come  to  the  front  through 
almost  endless  stages  of  promotion  from  lower 
to  higher  forms  of  life."  l  And  again  : — 

"  It  is  now  generally  admitted  that  the  man 
of  to-day  is  the  child  and  product  of  incalcu- 
lable antecedent  time.  His  physical  and  intel- 
lectual textures  have  been  woven  for  him  during 
his  passage  through  phases  of  history  and  forms 
of  existence  which  lead  the  mind  back  to  an 
abysmal  past." 3  "  If  to  any  one  of  us  were 
given  the  privilege  of  looking  back  through  the 

1  "  Science  and  Man."  Fortnightly  Review,  voL  xxii. 
p.  61 1. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  594. 


Evolution.  49 

aeons  across  which  life  has  crept  towards  its 
present  outcome,  his  vision  would  ultimately 
reach  a  point  when  the  progenitors  of  this 
assembly  could  not  be  called  human."  1  "  No 
one  indeed  doubts  now  that  all  the  higher  types 
of  life  with  which  the  earth  teems  have  been- 
developed  by  the  patient  process  of  evolution 
from  lower  organisms,  and  in  logical  consis- 
tency we  are  bound  to  trace  back  the  series 
to  the  simplest  forms  of  protoplasm,  which  the 
microscope  reveals  to  us  as  living  units.  But 
all  this  is  but  the  outcome  of  life  from  life,  and 
leaves  us  without  an  approach  to  a  solution  of 
the  mighty  question  of  the  origin  of  life.  There 
was  a  time  when  the  earth  was  a  red-hot  melted 
globe,  on  which  no  life  could  exist.  In  course 
of  ages  its  surface  cooled  ;  but,  to  quote  the 
words  of  one  of  our  greatest  savans,  'when  it 
first  became  fit  for  life  there  was  no  living  thing 
upon  it.'  How  then  are  we  to  conceive  the 
origination  of  organized  creatures  ?  "  3 

Professor  Huxley,  propounding  to  the  British 
Association3  the  tenets  of  what  he  called  his 

1  "  Science  and  Man."  Fortnightly  Review,  vol.  xxii. 
p.  611. 

*  "The  Germ  Theory  and  Spontaneous  Generation." 
Contemporary  Review,  vol.  xxix.  pp.  901,  902. 

3  In  the  Presidential  Address  for  1870. 


50  x  Scientific  Sophisms. 

"  philosophic  faith "  on  this  subject,  has 
answered  this  question  with  his  characteristic 
clearness  of  enunciation  : — 

"If  it  were  given  me  to  look  beyond  the 
abyss  of  geologically  recorded  time  to  the  still 
more  remote  period  when  the  earth  was  passing 
through  physical  and  chemical  conditions,  which 
it  can  no  more  see  again  than  a  man  can  recall 
his  infancy,  I  should  expect  to  be  a  witness  of 
the  evolution  of  living  protoplasm  from  not 
living  matter."  l 

To  the  same  effect,  and  not  less  articulately, 
Professor  Tyndall : — 

"  The  problem  before  us  is,  at  all  events, 
capable  of  definite  statement.  We  have  on  the 
one  hand  strong  grounds  for  concluding  that- 
the  earth  was  once  a  molten  mass.  We  now 
find  it  not  only  swathed  by  an  atmosphere  and 
covered  by  a  sea,  but  also  crowded  with  living 
things.  The  question  is,  how  were  they  intro- 
duced ?  The  conclusion  of  science, 
which  recognises  unbroken  causal  connection 
between  the  past  and  the  present,  would  un- 
doubtedly be  that  the  molten  earth  contained 
within  it  the  elements  of  life,  which  grouped 
themselves  into  their  present  forms  as  the  planet 
cooled.  The  difficulty  and  reluctance  encoun- 

1  "  Critiques  and  Addresses."    Macmillan,  1 873,  p.  239. 


Evolution.  5 1 

tered  by  this  conception,  arise  solely  from  the 
fact  that  the  theologic  conception  obtained  a 
prior  footing  in  the  human  mind.  Did  the 
latter  depend  upon  reasoning  alone,  it  could 
not  hold  its  ground  for  an  hour  against  its 
rival.  .  .  .  Were  not  man's  origin  im- 
plicated, we  should  accept  without  a  murmur 
the  derivation  of  animal  and  vegetable  life  from 
what  we  call  inorganic  nature.  The  conclusion 
of  pure  intellect  points  this  way  and  no 
other."  * 

In  other  words — and  to  sum  up  all  that  has 
been  said  in  one  short  but  authoritative  sen- 
tence— "  The  doctrine  of  Evolution  derives  man 
in  his  totality  from  the  interaction  of  organism 
and  -  environment  through  countless  ages 
past." 2 

And  this  it  does,  whatever  may  become  of 
Darwinism.  On  this  head,  a*  well  as  on  the 
illimitable  sphere  of  its  operation,  we  have  the 
final  conclusion  of  Professor  Huxley  : — 

"  But  even  leaving  Mr.  Darwin's  views  aside, 
the  whole  analogy  of  natural  operations  furnishes 
so  complete  and  crushing  an  argument  against 
the  intervention  of  any  but  what  are  termed 

1  "Materialism  and  its  Opponents."     Fortnightly  Re- 
•view,  vol.  xviii.  pp.  596,  597. 

2  Prof.  Tyndall's  "  Belfast  Address,"  p.  59. 


52  Scientific  Sophisms. 

secondary  causes  in  the  production  of  all  the 
phenomena  of  the  universe  ;  that  in  view  of  the 
intimate  relations  between  Man  and  the  rest  of 
the  liv.ng  world ;  and  between  the  forces  exerted 
by  the  latter  and  all  other  torces,  I  can  see  no 
excuse  for  doubting  that  all  are  co-ordinated 
terms  o  Nature's  great  progression,  from  the 
lOrmless  to  the  formed, — from  the  inorganic  to 
the  organic, —  .rom  Lhnd  force  to  conscious  in- 
tellect and  will." ! 

"Evidence  as  to  Man's  Place  in  Nature."     Williams 
and  Norgate,  1803,  p.  108. 


CHAPTER  III. 
"A   PUERILE  HYPOTHESIS" 

THIS,  then,  is  Evolution:  "baldest  of  all  the 
philosophies  which  have  sprung  up  in  our 
world."  The  evolution  which  solves  the  pro- 
blem of  human  origin  by  the  assumption  that 
human  nature  exists  potentially  in  mere  inor- 
ganic matter ;  and  the  assertion  that  man,  with 
all  his  powers,  and  all  their  products,  is  the 
necessary  result,  by  spontaneous  derivation,  of 
the  interaction  of  incandescent  molecules. 

But  is  this  evolution  scientific  ?  Is  it  demon- 
strable ?  Is  it  true  ?  Before  this  question  its 
assumptions  cannot  save  it,  however  large ;  its 
assertions  cannot  prove  it,  however  loud.  The 
question  lies  deeper.  Has  it  received  the  neces- 
sary "verification  ?"  The  "verification"  without 
which,  however  ingenious  as  a  theoretic  con- 
ception, it  must  ever  remain  "  a  mere  figment  of 
the  intellect?"1 

1  Prof.  TyndalPs  "  Fragments  of  Science,"  p.  469. 


54  Scientific  Sophisms. 

To  this  question  the  answer  is  both  unambi- 
guous and  conclusive.  To  present  it  the  more 
clearly,  let  us  take  separately  the  two  points 
involved.  First,  what  is  the  evidence  for  the 
succession  of  life  from  lower  to  higher  forms  ? 
And  second,  what  is  the  evidence  as  to  the 
existence  of  any  instance  of  the  conversion  or 
transmutation  of  one  species  into  another  ? 

Let  Professor  Huxley  answer.  For  we  shall 
find  no  witness  more  competent  than  he  ;  none 
whose  authority  in  all  matters  of  natural  history 
and  palaeontology  is  more  indisputable  ;  none 
more  illustrious  in  his  championship  of  Evolu- 
tion in  general,  or  of  Mr.  Darwin's  views  in  par- 
ticular. "  There  is  but  one  hypothesis,"  he  tells 
us,  "  as  to  the  origin  of  species  of  animals  in 
general  which  has  any  scientific  existence — that 
propounded  by  Mr.  Darwin."  l  Testimony  from 
that  quarter,  therefore,  cannot  fail  to  have  a 
special  force.  And  on  the  first  part  of  the 
question  Professor  Huxley  writes  thus  : — 

"  What,  then,  does  an  impartial  survey  of  the  positively 
ascertained  truths  of  palaeontology  testify  in  relation  to 
the  common  doctrines  of  progressive  modification,  which 
suppose  that  modification  to  have  taken  place  by  a  neces- 
sary progress  from  more  to  less  embryonic  forms,  or  from 

f  "  Man's  Place  in  Nature,"  p.  106. 


"A  Puerile  Hypothesis"  55 

more  to  less  generalized  types,  within  the  limits  of  the 
period  represented  by  the  fossiliferous  rocks  ? 

"It  negatives  those  doctrines,  for  it  either  shows  us  no 
evidence  of  such  modification,  or  demonstrates  such  mo- 
dification as  has  occurred  to  have  been  very  slight  ;  and 
as  to  the  nature  of  that  modification,  it  yields  no  evidence 
whatsoever  that  the  earlier  members  of  any  long-continued 
group  were  more  generalized  in  structure  than  the  later 
ones.  .  .  . 

"  Contrariwise,  any  admissible  hypothesis  of  progres- 
sive modification  must  be  compatible  with  persistence 
•without  progression  through  indefinite  periods." J 

In  other  words,  the  "  hypothesis "  requires 
some  proof  of  "  progressive  modification,"  but  it 
receives  none.  What  it  does  receive  is  disproof 
only.  To  its  demand  for  "  progression,"  "  the 
fossiliferous  rocks "  reply  by  exhibiting  only 
"  persistence  without  progression  ;  "  and  that, 
"  through  indefinite  periods."  To  its  assump- 
tion of  "  almost  endless  stages  of  promotion 
from  lower  to  higher  forms ^ofLIife7"  2  Palaeon- 
tology responds  by  demonstrating  that  of  these 
"  stages "  there  is  "  no  evidence,"  and  of  this 
"promotion  "  there  is  "  no  evidence  whatsoever." 

Nor  does  Professor  Huxley  stop  here.  Deal- 
ing with  the  supposition  that  such  a  hypothesis 
as  that  of  progressive  modification  should  "even- 

1  "  On  Persistent  Types  of  Life  :  "  in  "  Lay  Sermons," 
p. 225. 

8  Prof.  Tyndall's  "  Science  and  Man." 


5  6  Scientific  Sophisms. 

tually  be  proved  to  be.  true,"  he  makes  the  im- 
portant statement  that  the  only  way  in  which  it 
can  be  demonstrated  will  be  "  by  observation 
and  experiment  upon  the  existing  forms  of  life."1 
But  demonstration  of  this  kind  is  non-existent. 
Abundantly  and  incessantly  as  it  has  been  at- 
tempted, it  has  never  yet  been  achieved.  Tried 
by  this  test  of  "  observation  and  experiment 
upon  the  existing  forms  of  life,"  neither  Organic 
Evolution  in  general  nor  Mr.  Darwin's  "  Origin 
of  Species  "  in  particular,  has  any  actual  place 
in  rerum  naturd. 

On  the  second  part  of  the  question— that 
of  the  transmutation  of  species — Mr.  Huxley 
writes : — 

"After  much  consideration,  and  with  assuredly 
no  bias  against  Mr.  Darwin's  views,  it  is  our 
clear  conviction  that,  as  the  evidence  stands,  it 
is  not  absolutely  proven  that  a  group  of  animals, 
having  all  the  characters  exhibited  by  species 
in  nature,  has  ever  been  originated  by  selection, 
whether  artificial  or  natural."  2  And  again  : — 

"  Our  acceptance  of  the  Darwinian  hypothesis 
must  be  provisional  so  long  as  one  link  in  the 
chain  of  evidence  is  wanting ;  and  so  long  as  all 
the  animals  and  plants  certainly  produced  by 

1  "  Lay  Sermons,"  p.  226. 
*  Ibid.,  p.  295. " 


"A  Puerile  Hypothesis."  57 

selective  breeding  from  a  common  stock  are 
fertile  with  one  another,  that  link  will  be 
wanting."  x 

"On  a  general  survey  of  the  theory,"  says 
Dr.  Elam,2  "nothing  strikes  us  more  forcibly 
than  the  total  absence  of  direct  evidence  of  any 
one  of  the  steps.  No  one  professes  to  have  ever 
seen  a  variety  (producing  fertile  offspring  with 
other  varieties)  become  a  species  (producing  no 
offspring,  or  no  fertile  offspring,  with  the  origi- 
nal stock).  No  one  knows  of  any  living  or  any 
extinct  species  having  given  origin  to  any  other, 
at  once  or  gradually.  Not  one  instance  is  ad- 
duced of  any  variety  having  ever  arisen  which 
did  actually  give  its  possessor,  individually,  any 
advantage  in  the  struggle  for  life.  Not  one  in- 
stance is  recorded  of  any  given  variety  having 
been  actually  selected  for  preservation,-  whilst  its 
allies  became  extinct.  There  is  an  abundance 


1  "Man's  Place  in  Nature,"  p.  107. 

2  "Automatism  and  Evolution."  Contemporary  Review, 
vol.  xxix.  p.  131.     [In  gratefully  acknowledging  my   in- 
debtedness to  the  series  of  papers  of  which  this  is  the 
third  (for  the  first  and  second,  see  Contemporary  Review, 
vol.  xxviii.  pp.  537  and    725),  perhaps    I  may   be    per- 
mitted to  say  that,  by   their  fairness   and  forcefulness, 
their  clearness  and  conclusiveness,  their  breadth  of  range 
and  their  minuteness  of  detail,  Dr.  Elam  has  laid  a  large 
circle  of  readers  under  lasting  obligations.]^ 


5-S  Scientific  Sophisms. 

of  semi-acute  reasoning  upon  what  might  pos- 
sibly have  occurred,  under  conditions  which 
seem  never  to  have  been  fulfilled  ; "  but  of  direct 
and  positive  testimony,  whether  derived  from 
the  experience  of  mankind  or  from  the  geolo- 
gical record,  there  is  no  fragment  whatever. 

Mr.  Darwin  himself,  as  shown  above,1'  is  so 
far  from  pretending  that  his  theory  has  re- 
ceived any  "verification,"  as  to  acknowledge, 
with  characteristic  candour,  that  in  the  existence 
of  structures  which  "cannot  be  accounted  for 
by  any  form  of  selection,"2  we  have  an  objection 
which  is  "  fatal "  to  that  theory.  And  even  in 
the  case  of  other  objections  not  thus  pronounced 
absolutely  "fatal"  in  form,  his  admissions  are 
such  as  to  show  that  they  are  fatal  in  fact. 
Thus,  for  instance,  the  absence  of  transitional 
forms  between  different  species  has  always  been 
recognised  as  a  serious  difficulty ;  and  Mr.  Dar- 
win, in  the  attempt  to  obviate  it,  succeeds  only 
in  showing  how  very  serious  it  is.  These  are  his 
words : — 

"  Geology  assuredly  does  not  reveal  any  such  finely 
graduated  organic  chain  ;  and  this,  perhaps,  is  the  most 
obvious  and  gravest  objection  which  can  be  urged  against 

1  Anle,  p.  23. 

*  "Descent  of  Man,"  vol.  ii.  p.  387. 


"A  Puerile  Hypothesis"  59 

my   theory.     The  explanation  lies,  as  I  believe,  in  the 
extreme  imperfection  of  the  geological  record."  * 

But  "  the  extreme  imperfection  of  the  geo- 
logical record"  here  hypothecated  by  way  of 
"explanation,"  is  so  far  from  being  a  scientific 
fact,  that  it  was  never  imagined  even  by  Mr. 
Darwin  himself  until  he  perceived  that  unless  it 
were  assumed,  "  the  testimony  of  the  rocks," — 
not  less  than  that  of  the  "  structures  "  presented 
by  "  man,  as  well  as  every  other  animal," — would 
be  "  fatal "  to  his  theory. 

"  I  do  not  pretend  that  I  should  ever  have  suspected 
how  poor  a  record  of  the  mutations  of  life  the  best  pre- 
served geological  section  presented,  had  not  the  difficulty 
of  our  not  discovering  innumerable  transitional  links 
between  the  species  which  appeared  at  the  commence- 
ment and  close  of  each  formation,  pressed  so  hardly  on  my 
theory."2  And  again  : — "  He  who  rejects  these  views  on 
the  nature 3  of  the  geological  record,  will  rightly  reject  my 
whole  theory."  4 

On  Mr.  Darwin's  own  showing  therefore,  cadit 
qucsstio.  "  These  views "  of  his  are  to  be  re- 
jected as  unscientific,  because  they  are  unveri- 

i  «  Origin  of  Species."     Murray,  1859,  p.  280. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  302. 

*  i.e.,  the  alleged  "  extreme  imperfection." 

*  "  Origin  of  Species,"  p.  342. 


60  Scientific  Sophisms. 

fied.  They  are  at  best  "  a  mere  figment  of  the 
intellect."  And  their  rejection  involves  the  re- 
jection of  his  "whole  theory." 

Jt  is  therefore  no  matter  for  surprise  that  a 
competent  authority  like  Mr.  St.  George  Mivart 
should  conclude  his  exhaustive  examination 
with  these  weighty  words  : — 

"With  regard  to  the  conception  as  now  put 
forward  'by  Mr.  Darwin,  I  cannot  truly  charac- 
terize it  but  by  an  epithet  which  I  employ  only 
with  much  reluctance.  I  weigh  my  words,  and 
have  present  to  my  mind  the  many  distin- 
guished naturalists  who  have  accepted  the 
notion,  and  yet  I  cannot  hesitate  to  call  it  a 
'puerile  hypothesis'  "  * * . 

Mr.  Mivart's  judgments  need  no  endorsement 
here  ;  but  those  who  are  most  conversant  with 
the  highly  cultivated  critical  faculty,  the  pro- 
found knowledge  of  natural  history  and  of 
biological  science  which  in  his  "  Genesis  of 
Species,"  and  afterwards,  in  his  "  Lessons  from 
Nature,"  he  has  brought  to  the  refutation  of 
Mr.  Darwin's  .doctrine  of  Natural  Selection, 
will  be  the  first  to  adopt  and  to  reiterate  this, 

1  "  Lessons  from  Nature,  as  manifested  in  Mind  and 
Matter."  By  St.  George  Mivart,  Ph.D.,  F.R.S.,  etc. 
London:  Murray,  1876.  Chap.  ix.  p.  300.  (*  This  em- 
phasis of  italics  is  Mr.  Mivart's.) 


"A  Puerile  Hypothesis?  61 

his  latest  verdict.  That  doctrine  lacks  even  the 
ordinary  respectability  of  "a  mere  figment  of 
the  intellect."  It  is  not  merely  fictitious,  it  is 
discreditable  : — a  "puerile  hypotliesis? 


CHAPTER  IV. 
»  SCIENTIFIC  LEVITY? 

AGNOSTIC  Evolution,  then,  is  merely  an  unveri- 
fied hypothesis.  And  it  is  based  on  two  sub- 
ordinate hypotheses,  equally  unverified.  And 
in  relation  to  it,  these  last  are  so  essentially 
necessary,  so  absolutely  fundamental,  that  if 
either  of  them  be  invalidated  the  entire  super- 
structure falls  to  the  ground.  The  Evolution 
here  controverted,  has  no  existence  whatever, 
has  even  no  theoretical  existence,  apart  from 
these  two  postulates:  (i)  "Spontaneous  Gene- 
ration"; and  (2)  "Transmutation  of  Species." 
Without  the  first,  it  would  be  destitute  of  its 
starting-point,  the  "  primordial  form."  Without 
the  second,  it  would  still  be  destitute,  on  agnos- 
tic principles,  of  all  other  forms  than  one. 

"  Transmutation  of  Species,"  however,  though 
reserved  for  further  examination  below,  may  for 
the  present  be  dismissed,  on  the  high  authority 
of  Professor  Mivart,  as  a  "  puerile  hypothesis." 
But  when,  on  scientific  grounds,  we  proceed  to 


Scientific  Sophisms.  •  63 

enquire  as  to  the  amount  and  character  of 
evidence  produced  or  producible,  in  favour  of 
"  Spontaneous  Generation,"  we  are  compelled 
to  regard  it  as  a  hypothesis  still  more  puerile. 

Speaking  of  evolution  at  large,  and  in  com- 
prehensive terms,  Professor  Whewell  justly 
says, — "  The  system  ought  to  be  described  as  a 
System  of  Order  in  which  life  grows  out  of  dead 
matter,  the  higher  out  of  tJte  lower  animals,  and 
man  out  of  brutes"  * 

To  begin  then  at  the  beginning.  Is  "The 
System,"  in  its  first  postulate,  true  or  false  ?  Is 
it  matter  of  fact,  or  merely  matter  of  fiction  ? 
Does  "life  grow  out  of  dead  matter?" 

Let  us  give  the  place  of  honour  to  "the 
Abraham  of  scientific  men."  Mr.  Darwin,  writ- 
ing to  the  Athenceum,  says — "I  hope  you  will 
permit  me  to  add  a  few  remarks  on  Heterogeny, 
as  the  old  doctrine  of  spontaneous  generation 
is  now  called,  to  those  given  by  Dr.  Carpenter, 
who,  however,  is  probably  better  fitted  to  dis- 
cuss the  question  than  any  other  man  in  Eng- 
land. Your  reviewer  believes  that  certain  lowly 
organized  animals  have  been  generated  spon- 
taneously— that  is,  without  pre-existing  parents 
— during  each  geological  period  in  slimy  ooze. 
A  mass  of  mud  with  matter  decaying  and  under- 

1  Whewell's  "  Indications."    Second  Edition,  p.  12. 


64  " Scientific  Levity" 

going  complex  chemical  changes  is  a  fui<; 
hiding-place  for  obscurity  of  ideas.  But  let  us 
face  the  problem  boldly.  He  who  believes  that 
organic  beings  have  been  produced  during  each 
geological  period  from  dead  matter,  must  believe 
that  the  first  being  thus  arose.  There  must 
have  been  a  time  when  inorganic  elements  alone 
existed  in  our  planet :  let  any  assumptions  be 
made,  such  as  that  the  reeking  atmosphere  was 
charged  with  carbonic  acid,  nitrogenized  com- 
pounds, phosphorus,  etc.  Now  is  there  a  fact, 
or  a  shadow  of  a  fact,  supporting  the  belief 
that  these  elements,  without  the  presence  of  any 
organic  compounds,  and  acted  on  only  by  known 
forces,  could  produce  a  living  creature  ?  At 
present,  it  is  to  us  a  result  absolutely  incon- 
ceivable." l 

Dr.  Carpenter  had  previously  written  thus  : — 
"  If  your  reviewer  prefers  to  suppose  that  new 
types  of  Foraminifera  originate  from  time  to 
time  out  of  the  '  ooze/  under  the  influence  of 
'  polar  forces,'  he  has,  of  course,  a  right  to  his 
opinion  ;  though  by  most  naturalists  such 
'  spontaneous  generation  '  of  rotalines  and  num- 
mulites  will  be  regarded  as  a  far  more  '  astound- 
ing hypothesis '  than  the  one  for  which  it  is 
offered  as  a  substitute.  But  I  hold  that  mine 
1  The  Athenceum  for  1863,  p.  554. 

E 


Scientific  Sophisms.  65 

is  the  more  scientific,  as  being  conformable  to 
the  fact  .  .  .  ;  whilst  his  is  not  supported 
by  any  evidence  that  rotalines  or  nummulites 
ever  originate  spontaneously,  either  in  '  ooze  '  or 
anywhere  else."  l 

"  Spontaneous  generation  "  therefore,  so  far 
from  being  a  scientific  verity,  is  pronounced 
by  the  highest  authority  in  England  to  be  an 
"astounding  hypothesis,"  "  not  supported  by 
any  evidence  "  ;  while  the  scientific  Abraham 
declares  it  to  be  "  absolutely  inconceivable." 

"  What  displeases  me  in  Strauss,"  says  Hum- 
boldt,  "  is  the  scientific  levity  which  leads  him 
to  see  no  difficulty  in  the  organic  springing  from 
the  inorganic,  nay,  man  himself  from  Chaldean 
mud."  3 

But  how  ?  The  modus  operandi:  what  was 
that  ?  For  answer  we  must  turn  first  of  alt  to  a 
work  which  has  at  least  the  distinction  of  having 
obtained  honourable  mention  by  Prof.  Tyndall. 
In  the  Belfast  Address 3  we  read  of  "  the  cele- 
brated Lamarck,  who  produced  so  profound  an 
impression  on  the  public  mind  through  the 
vigorous  exposition  of  his  views  by  the  author 
of  the  '  Vestiges  of  Creation.' "  Turning  then 

1  The  Athenaum  for  1863,  p.  461. 

8  "  Letters  to  Varnhagen."     First  Edition,  p.  117. 

•  P.  37- 


66  "Scientific  Levity" 

to  this  "  vigorous  exposition  "  we  find  that  the 
transition  was  effected  by  means  of  a  "  nucleated 
vesicle."  This  "  nucleated  vesicle,"  the  funda- 
mental form  of  all  organisation,  we  must  regard 
as  "the  meeting-point  between  the  inorganic 
and  the  organic — the  end  of  the  mineral  and 
the  beginning  of  the  vegetable  and  animal  king- 
doms, which  thence  start  in  different  directions, 
but  in  a  general  parallelism  and  analogy." 

Nor  is  this  all.  For  "  this  nucleated  vesicle  is 
itself  a  type  of  mature  and  independent  being 
in  the  infusory  animalcules,  as  well  as  the  start- 
ing-point in  the  foetal  progress  of  every  higher 
individual  in  creation,  both  animal  and  veget- 
able." 

What  then?  Granting  all  that  is  here  as- 
sumed, we  are  as  far  as  ever  from  a  solution  of 
the  problem  proposed.  That  problem  is,  to 
show  the  course  of  "  Nature's  great  progression," 
as  asserted,  "from  the  formless  to  the  formed, 
from  the  inorganic  to  the  organic."  But  to  be- 
gin with  -the  nucleated  vesicle  as  "the  funda- 
mental form  of  all  organisation,"  is  to  begin, 
not  at  the  beginning,  but  at  the  end.  "  The 
starting-point"  here  alleged,  is  on  the  wrong 
side  the  gulf.  We  want  to  know  how  it  was 
reached.  We  want  to  see,  not  the  first  thing 
"  formed,"  but  the  bridge  that  spans  the  chasm 


Scientific  Sophisms.  67 

for  the  "  great  progression  "  from  the  formless  ; 
not  the  first  thing  that  lived,  but  the  "  evolu- 
tion "  of  "life  "  from  "not  living  matter." 

But  to  satisfy  this  demand  is,  as  we  have  seen, 
impossible,  since  the  "  evolution "  required  is 
not  only  non-existent,  but  is  pronounced  by  Mr. 
Darwin  himself  to  be  "absolutely  inconceivable." 
What  then  is  to  be  done  ?  Nothing  is  more 
simple.  The  demand  that  cannot  be  met  must 
be  evaded ;  and  we  are  accordingly  asked  to 
believe  that  the  nucleated  vesicle  "  is  a  form  of 
being  which  there  is  some  reason  to  believe 
electric  agency  will  produce — though  not  per- 
haps usher  into  full  life — in  albumen,  one  of 
those  component  materials  of  animal  bodies, 
in  whose  combination  it  is  believed  there  is  no 
chemical  peculiarity  forbidding  their  being  any 
day  realized  in  the  laboratory.  Remembering 
these  things,"  proceeds  the  writer,  "  we  are  drawn 
on  to  the  supposition  that  the  first  step  in  the 
creation  of  life  upon  this  planet  was  a  chemico- 
electric  operation,  by  which  simple  germinal 
vesicles  were  produced." 

Observe  here,  not  the  reasoning,  but  the  un- 
reason. The  premiss,  "  There  is  some  reason 
to  believe."  The  conclusion,  a  "  supposition." 
There  is  some  reason  to  believe  that  "  electric 
agency  will  produce "  something  not  alive. 


68  "Scientific  Levity? 

Ergo,  "  a  chemico-electric  operation  "  was  "  the 
first  step  in  the  creation  of  life  !  " 

But  had  not  Prevost  and  Dumas  previously 
announced  that  "  globules  could  be  produced  in 
albumen  by  electricity  "  ?  Quite  true  :  but  the 
support  which  the  author's  "  supposition  "  was 
supposed  to  receive  from  that  announcement 
fails  at  once  before  the  remark  that,  "  if  his  theory 
had  been  that  the  first  step  in  the  process  of 
creation  was  the  formation  of  vesicles  by  the 
wind  passing  over  the  ocean,  then  the  fact  of 
boys  blowing  bubbles  in  soap  and  water  with  a 
tobacco  pipe,  and  the  fable  of  Venus  being 
born  of  the  froth  of  the  sea  would  have  been  as 
much  to  his  purpose." 

From  the  author  of  the  "  Vestiges  "  we  turn 
to  his  eulogist,  Professor  Tyndall : — 

"  If  you  ask  me  whether  there  exists  the  least  evidence 
to  prove  that  any  form  of  life  can  be  developed  out  of 
matter,  without  demonstrable  antecedent  life,  my  reply  is 
that  evidence  considered  perfectly  conclusive  by  many 
has  been  adduced  ;  and  that  were  some  of  us  who  have 
pondered  this  question  to  follow  a  very  common  example, 
and  accept  testimony  because  it  falls  in  with  our  belief, 
we  also  should  eagerly  close  with  the  evidence  referred 
to.  But  there  is  in  the  true  man  of  science  a  wish 
stronger  than  the  wish  to  have  his  beliefs  upheld  ; 
namely,  the  wish  to  have  them  true.  And  this  stronger 
wish  causes  him  to  reject  the  most  plausible  support  if  he 
has  reason  to  suspect  that  it  is  vitiated  by  error.  Those 


Scientific  Sophisms.  69 

to  whom  I  refer  as  having  studied  this  question,  believing 
the  evidence  offered  in  favour  of  '  spontaneous  genera- 
tion '  to  be  thus  vitiated  cannot  accept  it.  They  know 
full  well  that  the  chemist  now  prepares  from  inorganic 
matter  a  vast  array  of  substances  which  were  some  time 
ago  regarded  as  the  sole  products  of  vitality.  They  are  in- 
timately acquainted  with  the  structural  power  of  matter  as 
evidenced  in  the  phenomena  of  crystallization.  They  can 
justify  scientifically  their  belief  in  its  potency,  under  the 
proper  conditions,  to  produce  organisms.  But  in  reply 
to  your  question  they  would  frankly  admit  their  inability 
to  point  to  any  satisfactory  experimental  proof  that  life 
can  be  developed  save  from  demonstrable  antecedent 
life.  As  already  indicated,  they  draw  the  line  from  the 
highest  organisms  through  lower  ones  down  to  the  lowest, 
and  it  is  the  prolongation  of  this  line  by  the  intellect 
beyond  the  range  of  the  senses  that  leads  them  to  the 
conclusion  which  Bruno  so  boldly  enunciated."  * 

Reserving,  for  the  present,  all  consideration  of 
the  other  important  admissions  in  this  remark- 
able paragraph,  it  is-  sufficient  to  note  here  the 
distinctly  decisive  answer  which  it  furnishes  to 
the  question  before  us.  "  The  evidence  offered 
in  favour  of 'spontaneous  generation'"  is  "viti- 
ated by  error."  There  is  no  "satisfactory  ex- 
perimental proof,"  nor  even  does  there  exist 
"  the  least  evidence  to  prove  that  any  form  of 
life  can  be  developed  out  of  matter,  without 
demonstrable  antecedent  life." 

With   this   avowal   of  Professor    Tyndall  as 

1  "  Belfast  Address,"  pp.  55,  56. 


7°  "Scientific  Levity'' 

.well  as  with  the  preceding  passage  from  the 
"Vestiges,"  it  is  instructive  to  compare  the 
carefully  constructed  sentences — so  reticent,  so 
politic — of  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer  : — 

"  The  chasm,"  he  tells  us,  "  between  the  in- 
organic and  the  organic  is  being  filled  up.  On 
the  one  hand,  some  four  or  five  thousand  com- 
pounds, once  regarded  as  exclusively  organic, 
have  now  been  produced  artificially  from  inor- 
ganic matter ;  and  chemists  do  not  doubt  their 
ability  so  to  produce  the  highest  forms  of 
organic  matter.  On  the  other  hand,  the  micro- 
scope has  traced  down  organisms  to  simpler 
and  simpler  forms,  until  in  the  Protogenes  of 
Professor  Haeckel,  there  has  been  reached  a 
type  distinguishable  from  a  fragment  of  albu- 
men only  by  its  finely  granular  character."1 

On  which  Dr.  Elam  pertinently  asks,  "  Does 
not  every  candid  observer  know  that  this  said 
'  chasm '  is  not  in  any  way  '  being  filled  up  ; ' 
and  that  the  chemist  could  quite  as  easily  con- 
struct a  full-grown  ostrich,  as  this  despised  bit 
of  finely  granulated  albumen  ? "  As  for  the 
"  four  or  five  thousand  compounds,"  as  well 
might  the  goldsmith  say  that  he  did  not 
"  doubt  his  ability "  to  make  gold  out  of  a 

1  "  Principles  of  Psychology "  (Stereotyped  Edition), 
voL  i.  p.  137. 


Scientific  Sophisms.  7l 

baser  metal,  because  he  had  already  moulded 
it  and  coloured  it  in  four  or  five  thousand  differ- 
ent fashions.  It  is  riot  in  any  sense  true  that 
any  substance  even  distantly  resembling  or- 
ganizable  matter  has  been  formed.  The  line 
of  demarcation  between  the  organic  and  the 
inorganic  is  as  wide  as  ever.  For  what  are 
these  "  organic "  matters  said  to  have  been 
formed  from  their  elements  ?  They  are  chiefly 
binary  and  ternary  compounds  ;  certain  acids 
of  the  compound  radical  class,  some  alcohols, 
ethers,  and  the  like.  Not  one  of  them  bears 
the  most  remote  resemblance  to  anything  that 
can  live.  Few  of  them  contain  nitrogen,  and 
these  few,  chiefly  amides,  are  only  combinations 
of  ammonia  or  ammonium  with  other  binary 
or  ternary  compounds,  and  can  only  by  courtesy 
or  convention  be  allowed  to  be  of  "  organic " 
nature.  Neither  chemically  nor  physically  are 
they  in  any  way  allied  to  matter  possessing  the 
capacity  of  life.  "  One  least  particle  of  albu- 
men, granulated  or  not  granulated,  would  be 
an  answer  a  thousandfold  more  crushing  to  the 
opponents  of  Evolution  than  myriads  of  such 
compounds." 

It  is  now  thirty-five  years  since  the  author  of 
the  "  Vestiges,"  in  his  "  vigorous  exposition," 
enunciated  the  "belief"  that  "albumen" 


72  "Scientific  Levity". 

might  be  "  any  day  realized  in  the  laboratory  ; " 
and  that  there  was  "no  chemical  peculiarity  for- 
bidding" that  realization.  In  those  thirty-five 
years  scientific  chemistry  has  advanced,  with 
colossal  strides,  at  a  rate  of  progress  previcusly 
unknown  and  unimagined.  Its  triumphs  are 
attested  by  the  number  and  character  of  its 
investigations,  its  improved  methods,  its  en- 
larged nomenclature,  its  ever-increasing  wealth 
of  results.  Its  history  during  the  present  cen- 
tury presents  a  continuous  series  of  remarkable 
discoveries :  the  number  of  non-metallic  ele- 
ments has  been  increased  by  the  addition  of 
iodine,  bromine,  and  selenium ;  that  of  the 
metals  has  been  nearly  doubled  ;  the  carefully 
examined  compounds  have  increased  a  hundred- 
fold ;  "a  vast  array  of  substances"  has  been 
compounded  or  decompounded ;  but,  towards 
that  border-land  which  separates  the  organic 
from  the  inorganic — if  such  a  border-land  there 
be — this  triumphant  chemistry  has  not  advanced 
one  single  step.  "  Chemists/'  we  are  told,  "  do 
not  doubt  their  ability  "  to  do  that  which  has 
hitherto  mocked  all  their  efforts.  Thirty-five 
years  ago  they  were  equally  untroubled  by 
doubt,  and  equally  destitute  of  achievement. 
They  then  believed  the  great  desideratum 
might  be  "  any  day  realized  in  the  laboratory." 


Scientific  Sophisms.  73 

And  they  "do  not  doubt"  it  now.  But  still 
they  do  not  "  realize  "  it.  They  have  not  "  the 
least  evidence  "  in  support  of  their  belief :  they 
have  still  less  of  "  satisfactory  experimental 
proof." 

But  who  is  this  "they"?  It  is  not  the 
chemist :  it  is  the  "  philosopher."  The  chemist 
knows  better.  He  knows  that  notwithstanding 
an  altered  classification  of  "  organic  "  and  "  in- 
organic," yet  between  his  compounds  on  the 
one  hand,  and  the  construction  of  organizable 
matter  on  the  other,  there  still  stands  the 
impassable  barrier  which  demonstrates  that 
the  affinities  of  life  and  living  matter  belong 
to  a  chemistry  of  which  we  know  nothing,  and 
which,  to  strive  to  imitate  is  but  to  strive  in 
vain. 

The  name  of  Dr.  Rudolf  Virchow  has  been 
familiar  to  scientific  Europe  for  nearly  forty 
years,  as  one  honoured  amongst  the  most 
honourable.  It  was  he  who,  at  the  Conference 
of  the  Association  of  German  Naturalists  and 
Physicians  at  Munich,  in  the  autumn  of  1877, 
led  the  reaction  in  the  high  places  of  learning 
against  the  dogmatism  of  science.  And  this 
is  what  he  says  on  the  "  scientific  levity "  of 
"  spontaneous  generation  "  : — 

"  I   grant    that    if    any    one    is    determined 


74  "Scientific  Levity? 

to  form  for  himself  an  idea  of  how  the  first 
organic  being  could  have  come  into  exis- 
tence, of  itself,  nothing  further  is  left  than  to 
go  back  to  spontaneous  generation.  .  .  . 
But  of  this  we  do  not  possess  any  actual 
proof.  No  one  has  ever  seen  a  gemratio 
tzquivoca  really  effected ;  and  whoever  supposes 
that  it  has  occurred  is  contradicted  by  the 
naturalist,  and  not  merely  by  the  theologian. 
.  .  .  If  it  were  capable  of  proof,  it  would 
indeed  be  beautiful !  But  whoever 

recalls  to  mind  the  lamentable  failure  of  all 
the  attempts  made  very  recently  to  discover 
a  decided  support  for  the  generatio  (zquivoca  in 
the  lower  forms  of  transition  from  the  inor- 
ganic to  the  organic  world,  will  feel  it  doubly 
serious  to  demand  that  this  theory,  so  utterly 
discredited,  should  be  in  any  way  accepted  as 
the  basis  of  all  our  views  of  life."  * 

An  "  astounding  hypothesis,"  "  not  supported 
by  any  evidence," 2  "  absolutely  inconceivable,"  8 
and  "  utterly  discredited. "  *  Such  is  the 
"  scientific  levity  "  of  Spontaneous  Generation. 

1  "The  Freedom  of  Science  in  the   Modern   State," 

P-39- 

*  Dr.  Carpenter,  ut  sup. 

*  Mr.  Darwin. 

*  Dr.  Virchow. 


CHAPTER  V. 

A   HOUSE   OF  CARDS. 

"  SPONTANEOUS  Generation "  therefore,  not 
less  than  "  Transmutation  of  Species,"  is  merely 
"  a  puerile  hypothesis."  But  on  these  two 
dogmas  the  theory  of  agnostic  Evolution  is 
absolutely  dependent  By  means  of  the  sup- 
port derived  from  them — if  only  they  them- 
selves could  have  been  made  to  stand — it  might 
have  stood  ;  but  with  their  fall,  it  also  comes 
to  the  ground.  Its  relation  to  them  renders  its 
fate  inevitable.  The  instability  of  the  super- 
structure is  inseparably  concomitant  with  the 
insecurity  of  the  foundation. 

Nor  is  this  all.  Fate  is  involved  in  charac- 
ter: and  when  we  proceed  to  examine  the 
character  of  this  theory,  we  are  at  no  loss  to 
discover  the  cause  of  its  fate. 

If  the  doctrine  of  agnostic  Evolution  were 
scientifically  true,  it  could  not  fail  to  command 
the  universal  assent  of  scientific  men ;  whereas 
now,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  notorious  that 


76  Scientific  Sophisms. 

among  the  ranks  of  those  most  eminent  for 
scientific  attainment  there  are  not  wanting  ear- 
nest and  enlightened  seekers  after  truth,  who 
have  not  only  refused  to  accept  this  new  doc- 
trine with  its  "  logical  consequences,"  but  who 
have  based  their  refusal  on  this  explicit  ground, 
that  agnostic  Evolution  is  "  nothing  more  than 
a  flimsy  framework  of  hypothesis  constructed 
upon  imaginary  or  irrelevant  facts,  with  a  com- 
plete departure  from  every  established  canon  of 
scientific  investigation." 

In  his  Review  of  Professor  Haeckel's 
"  Natural  History  of  Creation,"  or,  as  he  would 
prefer  to  call  it,  "  The  History  of  the  Develop- 
ment or  Evolution  01  Nature,"  Professor  Hux- 
ley has  expressly  formulated  "  the  fundamen- 
tal proposition  of  Evolution."  "  That  proposi- 
tion is,"  he  tells  us,  "  that  the  whole  world, 
living  and  not  living,  is  the  result  of  the 
mutual  interaction,  according  to  definite  laws, 
of  the  forces  possessed  by  the  molecules  of 
which  the  primitive  nebulosity  of  the  universe 
was  composed." J  And  he  adds,  "  If  this  be 
true,  it  is  no  less  certain  that  the  existing 
world  lay  potentially  in  the  cosmic  vapour." 

In  this,  of  course,  he  agrees  with  Haeckel,  by 

1  "  Critiques  and  Addresses,"  Macmillan,  1873  (xii. 
"  The  Genealogy  of  Animals  "),  p.  305. 


A  House  of  Cards.  77 

whom  "full  justice  is  done  to  Kant,  as  the 
originator  of  that  'cosmic  gas  theory/  as  the 
Germans  somewhat  quaintly  call  it,  which  is 
commonly  ascribed  to  Laplace." l 

Professor  Tyndall  agrees  with  both.  Having 
discerned  in  "  Matter  "  "  the  promise  and  potency 
of  all  terrestial  life,"3  he  lays  it  down  as  funda- 
mental that  "  the  doctrine  of  evolution  derives 
man  in  his  totality  from  the  interaction  of  organ- 
ism and  environment  through  countless  ages 
past"  8  By  that  "  vision  of  the  mind,"  which, 
as  he  tells  us,  "  authoritatively  supplements 
the  vision  of  the  eye,"  4  he  sees  "  the  cosmic 
vapour "  as  a  primitive  "  nebular  haze "  (the 
"  universal  fire-mist "  of  the  "  Vestiges  "),  gradu- 
ally cooling,  and  contracting  as  it  cooled,  into  a 
"  molten  mass,"  in  which  "  latent  and  potential " 
were  not  only  "life"  before  it  was  alive,  and 
M  form "  before  it  was  formed, ;-"" not  alone  the 
exquisite  and  wonderful  mechanism  of  the 
human  body,  but  the  human  mind  itself; 
emotion,  intellect,  will,  and  all  their  phenomena 
...  all  our  philosophy,  all  our  poetry,  all 

1  "Critiques   and  Addresses,"   Macmillan,   1873    (*&• 
"  The  Genealogy  of  Animals  "),  p.  304. 
8  "  Belfast  Address,"  p.  55. 
»  Ibid.,  p.  59. 
«  Ibid.,  p.  55. 

F 


78  Scientific  Sophisms. 

our  science,  and  all  our  art — Plato,  Shakespeare, 
Newton,  Raphael."  All  that  has  been ;  all  that 
is ;  nay  even  all  that  is  imagined  only ;  was 
once, — to  the  scientific  eye,  "in  a  fine  frenzy 
rolling," — "potential  in  the  fires  of  the  sun  ;"1 
just  as  those  fires  themselves  had  no  existence 
(other  than  "  latent  and  potential ")  until  they 
were  kindled  by  the  condensation  of  "  the 
cosmic  vapour." 

These  quotations,  and  such  as  these — for  they 
might  be  indefinitely  extended — enable  us  to 
sum  up  the  doctrine  of  Agnostic  Evolution  in 
two  short  propositions  : — 

First,  "  That  the  earliest  organisms  were  the 
natural  product  of  the  interaction  of  ordinary 
inorganic  matter  and  force." 

Second,  "That  all  the  forms  of  animal  and 
vegetable  life,  including  man  himself,  with  all 
his  special  and  distinctive  faculties,  have  been 
slowly,  but  successively  and  gradually  developed 
from  the  earliest  and  simplest  organisms." 

But  when  we  proceed  to  examine  the 
scientific  pretensions  of  the  theory  thus  suc- 
cinctly stated,  we  find,  on  Professor  Tyndall's 
own  showing,  that  they  are  worthless.  Worth- 
less, because  unverified,  and  incapable  of  veri- 
fication. "The  strength  of  the  doctrine  of 

1  "  Scientific  Use  of  the  Imagination,"  p.  453. 
I 


A  House  of  Cards.  79 

evolution  consists/'  he  tells  us,  "not  in  an 
experimental  demonstration  (for  the  subject  is 
hardly  accessible  to  this  mode  of  proof),  but  in 
its  general  harmony  with  scientific  thought."  l 
"  Scientific  thought,"  however,  can  only  mean 
"the  aggregate  thoughts  of  scientific  men;" 
and  with  these  thoughts  it  is  most  certain  that 
this  doctrine  of  Evolution  is  not  in  harmony. 
Mr.  Darwin,  with  his  usual  candour,  writes  as 
recently  as  1871,  "Of  the  older  and  honoured 
chiefs  in  natural  science,  many  unfortunately 
are  still  opposed  to  Evolution  in  every  form."  * 
Since  that  date  it  is  certain  that,  on  the  con- 
tinent at  least,  the  doctrine  has  been  met  by 
many  distinguished  botanists  and  zoologists  with 
growing  disfavour.  To  the  same  purpose  is 
the  still  more  recent  admission  of  Professor 
Tyndall :  "  Our  foes  are  to  some  extent  they 
of  our  own  household,  including  not  only  the 
ignorant  and  the  passionate,  but  a  minority 
of  minds  of  high  calibre  and  culture,  lovers  of 
freedom,  moreover,  who,  though  its  objective 
hull  be  riddled  by  logic,  still  find  the  ethic  life 
of  their  religion  unimpaired."  3 

But  even  if  this  were  not  the  case,  it  would 

1  "  Belfast  Address,"  p.  58. 

*  "  Descent  of  Man,"  p.  2. 

*  "Materialism  and  its  Opponents,"  ut sup.t  p.  597. 


8o  Scientific  Sophisms. 

still  be  true,  on  Professor  Tyndall's  showing, 
that  Evolution  as  above  defined  has  not  been 
"  verified  "  "  by  observation  and  experiment ;  " 
and  that  "  without  verification  a  theoretic  con- 
ception is  a  mere  figment  of  the  intellect"  * 
"Those  who  hold  the  doctrine  of  evolution," 
he  tells  us,  "  are  by  no  means  ignorant  of  the 
uncertainty  of  their  data,  and  they  only  yield 
to  it  a  provisional  assent  They  regard  the  ne- 
bular hypothesis  as  probable,  .  .  .  and  accept 
as  probable  the  unbroken  sequence  of  develop- 
ment from  the  nebula  to  the  present  time."  * 

"Probable,"  "provisional,"  "uncertain,"  and 
therefore  "  unscientific ; "  this,  on  the  highest 
authority,  is  thus  admitted  to  be  the  actual 
character  of  "  the  doctrine  of  Evolution."  But 
of  what  kind  is  this  probability  ?  When  ex- 
amined, it  appears  that  even  the  alleged  prob- 
ability itself  is  at  best  a  mere  "  supposition,"  "  a 
theoretic  conception,"  a  probability  hypothet- 
ical only,  nothing  more. 

For  example :  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer  tells  us 
that  "there  is  reason  to  suspect  that  there  is 
but  one  ultimate  form  of  Matter,  out  of  which 
the  successively  more  complex  forms  of  Matter 


1  "  Fragments  of  Science,"  p.  469. 

*  u  Scientific  Use  of  the  Imagination,"  p.  456. 


A  House  of  Cards.  81 

are  built  up."1  When  we  ask  for  the  reason 
for  this  assertion,  we  are  merely  told  that  there 
is  "reason  to  suspect"  so,  and  that  "by  the 
different  grouping  of  units,  and  by  the  com- 
bination of  the  unlike  groups  each  with  its 
own  kind,  and  each  with  other  kinds,  it  is 
supposed  that  there  have  been  produced  the 
kinds  of  matter  we  call  elementary."3  But, 
for  anything  that  appears  to  the  contrary,  the 
"  reason  to  suppose  "  all  this,  and  the  subsequent 
supposing  of  it,  exist  only  in  Mr.  Spencer's 
own  mind,  and  have  their  raison  d'etre  in  the 
exigencies  of  the  "  constructive  philosophy." 
Having  however  in  this  way  "  supposed  "  what- 
ever he  pleased,  and  having  also  justified  his 
method  of  procedure  by  saying  that  there  was 
"  reason  to  suppose  "  so,  he  then  in  the  very 
next  paragraph,  and  without  adducing  any 
proof  whatever,  proceeds  to  treat  these  sup- 
positions as  if  they  were  ascertained  facts,  and 
builds  on  them  as  if  he  took  them  for  solid 
foundations.  Thus  : — "  If  then,  WE  SEE  (!)  that 
by  unlike  arrangements  of  like  units,  all  the 
forms  of  matter,  apparently  so  diverse  in  nature 
may  be  produced,"  etc.  etc.3 

1  "Principles  of   Psychology."    Stereotyped   Edition. 
Williams  &  Norgate,  1870,  vol.  i.  p.  155. 
2  Ibid.  «  Ibid. 


82  Scientific  Sophisms. 

But  this  method  of  evolving  science  from 
supposition,  and  conjuring  with  conjecture  for 
certainty,  is  by  no  means  a  monopoly  of  Mr. 
Herbert  Spencer.  In  one  sentence  of  his  Essay 
on  "  Scientific  Materialism,"  Professor  Tyndall 
states  that  "  we  should  on  philosophic  grounds 
expect  to  find"  certain  physical  conditions;  and 
in  the  next,  he  commences  an  induction,  from  this 
mere  expectation,  with  the  phrase,  "  The  relation 
of  physics  to  consciousness  being  thus  invari- 
able "  ! 1  a  relation  which,  if  it  exists  at  all,  does 
certainly  not  exist  in  any  demonstrable  form — 
so  far  is  it  from  "  being  thus,"  or  being  in  any 
way  other  than  that  of  "  expectation  "  merely, 
"  invariable." 

Similarly,  when,  in  his  controversy  with  Mr. 
Martineau,  he  claims  "consciousness"  for  the 
fern  and  the  oak,  he  says,  "  No  man  can  say 
that  the  feelings  of  the  animal  are  not  repre- 
sented by  a  drowsier  consciousness  in  the 
vegetable  world.  At  all  events  no  line  has 
ever  been  drawn  between  the  conscious  and  the 
unconscious ;  for  the  vegetable  shades  into  the 
animal  by  such  fine  gradations,  that  it  is 
impossible  to  say  where  the  one  ends  and  the 
other  begins.  .  .  .  The  evidences  as  to 

1  "  Fragments  of  Sc;ence."  Sixth  Edition,  Longmans, 
1879,  vol.  ii.  p.  86. 


A  House  of  Cards.  83 

consciousness  in  the  vegetable  world  depend 
wholly  upon  our  capacity  to  observe  and  weigh 
them."1  What  then?  This,  evidently:  that 
since  we  are  not  possessed  of  any  such 
capacity ;  and  since,  without  that  capacity  the 
evidence  is  non-existent ;  it  follows  that  there 
is  no  evidence  whatever  "as  to  consciousness 
in  the  vegetable  world."  But  if  there  is  a  fatal 
lack  of  evidence  there  is  no  lack  of  imagination  ; 
and  Dr.  Tyndall's  imagination,  always  brilliant, 
is  fully  equal  to  the  occasion.  He  supposes 
altered  conditions  for  the  observer,  and  then 
says :  "  I  can  imagine  not  only  the  vegetable, 
but  the  mineral  world,  responsive  to  the  proper 
irritants." 2  "I  can  imagine  !  "  What  ?  "  Con- 
sciousness "  in  a  cabbage,  and  in  a  granite  cube. 
But  on  what  evidence  ?  None  that  I  can  find  : 
but  plenty  that  "  I  can  imagine  ! " 

In  the  same  category  with  the  suppositions 
of  Mr.  Spencer  and  the  imagination  of  Professor 
Tyndall  must  be  placed  the  conceptions  of  Mr. 
Darwin.  Like  them,  he  has  to  assume  as  fun- 
damental, certain  propositions  which  he  cannot 
prove.  But  then  if  he  cannot  prove,  he  "  can- 
not doubt,"  or  he  "can  hardly  doubt;"  and 
this  incapacity  for  doubt  serves  as  a  highly 

1  "  Materialism  and  its  Opponents,"  ut  sup.,  p.  595. 
«  Ibid. 


84          •      Scientific  Sophisms. 

convenient  substitute  for  certainty.  Thus, 
e.g.— 

"  I  cannot  doubt  that  the  theory  of  descent 
with  modification  embraces  all  the  members  of 
the  same  class."  *  And  again :  "  I  can  indeee* 
hardly  doubt  that  all  vertebrate  animals  having 
true  lungs,  have  descended,  by  ordinary  genera- 
tion from  an  ancient  prototype,  of  which  we 
know  nothing,  furnished  with  a  floating  appa- 
ratus or  swim-bladder."  "  It  is  conceivable  that 
the  now  utterly  lost  branchiae  might  have  been 
gradually  worked  in  by  natural  selection  for 
some  quite  distinct  purpose,  in  the  same 
manner  as  .  .  it  is  probable  that  organs 
which  at  a  very  ancient  period  served  for  respir- 
ation, have  been  actually  converted  into  organs 
of  flight."8 

It  would  be  sufficiently  surprising,  if  we  had 
not  been  so  long  accustomed  to  it,  to  learn  that 
the  possession  of  lungs  which  constitute  the 
fitness  of  the  possessors  for  living,  not  in  water, 
but  in  air,  betrays  their  aquatic  origin.3  But  it 
is  much  more  surprising  that  men  illustrious  in 
virtue  of  their  scientific  eminence  should  expect 

1  "  Origin  of  Species,"  p.  484. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  19 1. 

*  "  Land  animals,  which   in   their  lungs   or  modified 
swim-bladders  betray  their  aquatic  origin."    (Ibid.,  p.  196.) 


A  House  of  Cards.  85 

a  tissue  of  conjectures  such  as  this  to  be  ac- 
cepted as  if  it  possessed  any  scientific  authority. 
The  branchiae  are  "  now  utterly  lost ;  "  that  is, 
they  are  non-existent,  except  to  the  "  imagina- 
tion," to  which  "  it  is  conceivable "  that  they 
might  once  have  been  otherwise.  That  "  ancient 
mariner,"  the  primeval  ancestor  of  the  human 
race,  was  "an  ancient  prototype  of  which  we 
know  nothing."  And  yet,  strange  to  say,  we 
do  know  this  :  that  he  was  "  furnished  with  a 
floating  apparatus  or  swim-bladder."  Som-e 
thing  "  might  have  been  "  made  of  the  missing 
branchiae  "  for  some  quite  distinct  purpose  ;  " 
for  this,  although  not  actual  is  at  least  "con- 
ceivable." Nay,  it  almost  emerges  from  the 
realm  of  the  ideal  when  we  are  to  be  shown  the 
modus  operand^ — "  in  the  same  manner  as  " — as 
what  ?  As  in  some  other  instance  of  which  we 
have  tangible  proof  ?  No,  not  that :  but  only  as 
in  some  other  instance  where  "  it  is  probable," 
or  at  least  supposable,  that  "organs  which  at 
a  very  ancient  period  "  may  or  may  not  have 
existed  to  serve  a  given  end,  would  be  of  great 
service  to  this  theory  if  only  it  could  be  shown 
first,  that  they  did  exist,  and  then  that  they 
ceased  to  exist,  by  having  been  "  actually  con- 
verted "  into  other  organs  to  serve  another  and 
a  very  different  end. 


86  Scientific  Sophisms. 

Mr.  Spencer  "  supposes  ;  "  Dr.  Tyndall  "  im- 
agines;" Mr.  Darwin  "conceives."  Tier  on 
tier  the  towering  fabric  totters  to  its  fall :  no 
stability  in  the  foundation,  no  continuity  in  the 
superstructure;  "a  flimsy  framework  of  hypo- 
thesis, constructed  upon  imaginary  or  irrelevant 
facts,  with  a  complete  departure  from  every 
established  canon  of  scientific  investigation." 


CHAPTER  VI. 
SOPHISMS. 

"  No  stability  in  the  foundation,  no  continuity 
in  the  superstructure " ;  "a  flimsy  framework  of 
hypothesis,  constructed  on  imaginary  facts."  If 
any  one  imagines  that  this  is  the  language  of 
exaggeration  or  romance,  let  him  turn  to  the 
twenty-second  chapter  of  Haeckel's  "  Natural 
History  of  Creation,"  where  he  will  find  a 
complete  and  circumstantial  history  of  human 
ancestry  in  twenty-two  stages  of  existence,  from 
the  unicellular  Monera  up  to  the  perfect  man. 
The  theory  of  man's  ape-descent  thus  constructed 
is  perfect— but  it  is  in  the  air.  It  lacks  but  one 
thing  to  give  it  relevance  :  and  that  one  thing  is 
reality.  Like  the  "chateaux  en  Espagne"  of 
the  penniless  Count,  it  exists  only  in  the,  in- 
terested imagination  of  the  pretender. 

Du  Bois  Reymond  has  incurred  the  bitter 
and  unappeasable  wrath  of  Haeckel  by  declar- 
ing this  genealogical  tree  (Stammbauni)  to  be 
as  authentic  in  the  eyes  of  a  naturalist,  as  are 


Scientific  Sophisms. 

the  pedigrees  of  the  Homeric  heroes  in  those  of 
an  historian.  And  no  wonder ;  for,  unauthentic 
and  unreal  as  they  are,  they  are  indispensable. 
Without  them  the  theory  of  evolution  has  no 
pretence  to  "  continuity."  But  with  their  aid, 
although  the  continuity  which  they  confer  is  still 
in  nubibus,  the  argument  is  rounded  with  the 
completeness  of  a  circle.  What  are  the  proofs 
of  man's  descent  from  the  ape  ?  The  facts  of 
ontogenesis1  and  phylogenesis  and  their  corre- 
spondence. Where  are  these  facts  enumerated  ? 
In  the  twenty-second  chapter  of  Haeckel's 
"Natural  History  of  Creation."  What  is  the 
authority  for  these  facts  ?  Chiefly  this  :  that 
they  are  necessitated  by  the  exigencies  of  the 
theory.  But  where  is  the  demonstrative  evid- 
ence, direct  or  indirect,  that  any  creatures  repre- 
senting these  twenty-two  imaginary  stages  ever 
existed  ?  In  the  majority  of  instances  there  is 
no  such  evidence  ;  but  they  "  must  have  existed," 
otherwise  the  theory  would  be  imperfect. 

For  example,  the  Monera,  according  to 
Haeckel,  are  our  earliest  "ancestors;"  and  of 
these  it  is  stated, — as  if  it  were  a  plain  historical 

1  Ontogenesis,  the  history  of  individual  development 
Phylogenesis,  the  history  of  genealogical  development. 
Biogenesis,  the  history  of  life  development  generally, 
taeckel.) 


Sophisms.  89 

fact, — that  "they  originated  about  the  begin- 
ning of  the  Laurentian  period,  by  archebiosis 
or  spontaneous  generation,"  from  "  so-called  in- 
organic compounds  of  carbon,  hydrogen,  oxy- 
gen, and  nitrogen."1  After  what  has  been 
already  said  of  spontaneous  generation,2  it  is 
almost  superfluous  to  add  that  this  assertion 
about  our  earliest  "ancestors"  is  not  only 
destitute,  it  is  also  incapable,  of  proof.  And 
yet  the  fundamental  law  (Grundgesetz]  of  on- 
togenesis absolutely  requires  it. 

Again.  In  his  Munich  Address,  Haeckel  re- 
peats the  trite  old  tale  ("  as  if  it  had  not  been 
a  hundred  times  blown  into  the  'infinite  azure'") 
that  "  the  Monera,  consisting  of  protoplasm 
only,  bridge  over  the  deep  chasm  between 
organic  and  inorganic  nature,  and  show  us  Jwiv 
the  simplest  and  oldest  organisms  must  have 
originated  from  inorganic  carbon  compounds."8 
Whereas,  on  the  contrary,  the  simple  fact  is 
that  the  Monera  bridge  over  nothing  whatever ; 
nor  do  they  show,  in  any  conceivable  way,  how 
life  has  originated  from  inorganic  compounds. 
Chemically  and  dynamically  the  protoplasm  of 

1  "  Naturliche  Schopfungsgeschichte,"  p.  578. 
3  Vide  sup.,  p.  50  et  seqq.,  especially  p.  59. 
*  "  Die  Heutige    Entwickelungslehre  im  Verhaltnisse 
xur  Gesammtwissenschaft,"  p.  13. 


go  Scientific  Sophisms. 

these  apparently  simple  organisms  is  just  as  far 
removed  from  inorganic  matter  as  is  the  proto- 
plasm of  the  lion  or  the  eagle. 

Of  another  important  group  of  "ancestors," 
the  Gastreadcty  we  are  told  that  it  "  must  have 
existed  in  the  primordial  time,  and  must  have 
included  amongst  its  members  the  direct  ances- 
tors of  man."  No  one  ever  saw  a  single  in- 
dividual of  this  group ;  that  is  a  matter  of 
course.  It  is  equally  a  matter  of  course  that  no 
traces  are  to  be  found  of  its  existence.  But 
the  "certain  proof"1  of  that  existence  is  sup- 
posed to  be  found  in  the  fact  that  the  Am- 
phioxus,  at  one  period  of  its  development, 
presejits  a  type  similar  to  that  of — of  what? 
Of  the  imaginary  Gastraea  whose  existence  had 
to  be  proved  !  Our  ancestors,  the  worms,  come 
next ;  and,  like  their  predecessors,  they  "  must 
have  existed,"  because  without  them  we  should 
be  at  a  loss  how  to  derive  higher  worms,  and 
the  articulata  generally. 

Professor  Huxley,  summarizing  and  review- 
ing this  volume  of  Haeckel's,  is  careful  to 
express  his  "entire  concurrence  with  the  general 
tenor  and  spirit  of  the  work,"  and  his  "high 
estimate  of  its  value."3  Of  the  particular  por- 

1  "  Naturliche  Schopfungsgeschic^te,"  p.  581. 

*  "  Critiques  and  Addresses."  Macmillan,  1873,  p.  319. 


Sophisms*  91 

tion  now  under  review,  he  says, — "  In  Professor 
Haeckel's  speculation  on  Phylogeny,  or  the 
genealogy  of  animal  forms,  there  is  much  that 
is  profoundly  interesting,  and  his  suggestions 
are  always  supported  by  sound  knowledge  and 
great  ingenuity.  Whether  one  agrees  or  dis- 
agrees with  him,  one  feels  that  he  has  forced 
the  mind  into  lines  of  thought  in  which  it  is 
more  profitable  to  go  wrong  than  to  stand 
still. 

"To  put  his  views  into  a  few  words,  he 
conceives  that  all  forms  of  life  originally 
commenced  as  Monera,  or  simple  particles  of 
protoplasm ;  and  that  these  Monera  originated 
from  not  living  matter.  Some  of  the  Monera 
acquired  tendencies  towards  the  Protistic,  others 
towards  the  Vegetal,  and  others  towards  the 
Animal  modes  of  life.  The  last  became  animal 
Monera.  Some  of  the  animal  M&nera  acquired 
a  nucleus,  and  became  amoeba-like  creatures  ; 
and  out  of  certain  of  these,  ciliated  infusorium- 
like  animals  were  developed.  .  These  became 
modified  into  two  stirpes :  A,  that  of  the 
worms ;  and  B,  that  of  the  sponges.  The  latter 
by  progressive  modification  gave  rise  to  all  the 
Ccelenterata ;  the  former  to  all  other  animals. 
But  A  soon  broke  up  into  two  principal  stirpes, 
of  which  one,  a,  became  the  root  of  the  Anne- 

G 


92  Scientific  Sophisms. 

lida,  Echinodermata,  and  Arthropoda^  while  the 
other,  b,  gave  rise  to  the  Polyzoa  and  Ascidioida, 
and  produced  the  two  remaining  stirpes  of  the 
Vertebrata  and  the  Mollusca."1 

Many  persons  will  agree  with  Mr.  Huxley  so 
far  as  to  admit  that  Professor  Haeckel  is  not 
destitute  either  of  "  sound  knowledge,"  or  of 
"  great  ingenuity,"  who  yet  think  Mr.  Huxley  in 
error  when  he  represents  his  favourite  Professor 
as  possessing  these  characteristics  in  combina- 
tion. As  displayed  in  his  "speculations  on 
Phylogeny,"  they  appear  to  be  not  so  much  in 
combination  as  in  opposition.  Each  invades 
the  province  of  the  other.  Take  away  the 
"  knowledge,"  and  you  clear  the  field  for  the 
u  ingenuity  " :  but  where  "  sound  knowledge  "  is 
supreme,  "  great  ingenuity  "  is  superfluous.  He 
who  finds  it  "  more  profitable  to  go  wrong  than 
to  stand  still,"  may  indeed  display  "great 
ingenuity,"  but  the  soundness  of  his  "know- 
ledge "  is  by  no  means  unquestionable. 

Take,  for  example,  this  very  summary  of  "  his 
views,"  as  here  given  by  Professor  Huxley. 
What  he  does  "  view "  is  something  not  actual 
and  real,  but  ideal  only.  He  does  not  "prove"; 
he  does  not  even  assign  reasons  for  belief ;  but, 

1  "Critiques  and  Addresses."  Macmillan,  1873,  pp. 
314,315. 


»  Sophisms.  93 

like  Mr.  Darwin,  he  merely  "  conceives  "  a  cer- 
tain ideal  origin  of  life.  His  Monera,  at  first 
"  conceivable "  only,  and  then  "  conceived," 
"  acquired  tendencies."  But  how  did  they 
acquire  them?  And  how  does  he  know  that 
they  were  acquired  ?  The  only  answer  is,  that 
they  must  have  acquired  them  or  they  could 
never  have  possessed  them  and  they  must 
have  possessed  them,  or  they  could  not  have 
become  animal  Monera ;  and  they  must  have 
become  animal  Monera,  for  without  them 
the  theory  breaks  down,  and  the  existence  of 
the  animal  world  could  be  accounted  for 
only  by  admitting  the  doctrine  of  a  special 
creation.  To  meet  the  exigencies  of  the 
theory  therefore,  these  "simple  particles,"  so 
inexplicably  "originated,"  and  with  "ten- 
dencies "  so  inexplicably  "  acquired,"  at  last,  and 
in  some  equally  inexplicable  manner,  "  became 
animal  Monera" 

"At  last !"  By  no  means :  this  is  but  another 
beginning.  Each  tier  of  the  hypothesis  is 
constructed  only  by  a  recurrence  of  the  same 
dogmatic  assumptions.  "Some  of  the  animal 
Monera  acquired  a  nucleus,  and  became  amoeba- 
like  creatures."  "Great  ingenuity?"  Un- 
doubtedly :  whatever  the  theory  requires  is 
forthcoming on  paper.  The  transformations 


94  Scientific  Sophisms. 

are  as  surprising,  as  unaccountable, — and  as 
unreal, — as  those  which  ingenuity,  by  means  of 
sleight  of  hand,  brings  out  of  a  conjuror's  hat. 
But  it  is  only  conjuring  after  all;  and  "sound 
knowledge  "  is  not  imposed  upon  by  sleight  of 
hand.  These  "  simple  particles  "  "  originated," 
"acquired,"  "became,"  "were  developed,"  "be- 
came modified,"  "  gave  rise  to,"  and  "  produced," 
"all  forms  of  life."  How?  When?  Where? 
No  such  origination  has  ever  been  witnessed. 
No  such  evolution-  has  ever  been  observed. 
No  such  results  have  ever  been  produced.  But 
the  theory  requires  them  ;  and  consequently,  to 
meet  the  exigencies  of  the  theory,  here  they  are 
—on  paper. 

Before  dismissing  "  Professor  Haeckel's  specu- 
lations on  Phylogeny,"  there  is  one  other  point 
that  calls  for  special  notice.  His  fundamental 
postulates  are  these:  "That  all  forms  of  life 
originally  commenced  as  Monera,  or  simple 
particles  of  protoplasm ;  and  that  these  Monera 
originated  from  not  living  matter."  Yet  he 
himself  is  perfectly  aware  that  these,  his  funda- 
mental postulates,  are  not  only  "not  proven," 
but  are  incapable  of  proof.  "With  respect  to 
spontaneous  generation,"  says  Mr.  Huxley,1 
"  while  admitting  that  there  is  no  experimental 
1  "Critiques  and  Addresses."  Macmillan,  1873,  P-  3°4- 


Sophisms.  95 

evidence  in  its  favour,  Professor  Haeckel  denies 
the  possibility  of  disproving  it,  and  points  out 
that  the  assumption  that  it  has  occurred  is  a 
necessary  part  of  the  doctrine  of  evolution." 
So  be  it.  A  more  complete  confirmation  of 
what  has  been  already  said  on  this  subject  it 
would  be  impossible  to  desire.  Evolution  now, 
of  necessity,  rests  on  "spontaneous  generation:" 
while  spontaneous  generation  is  at  best  an 
"  assumption "  of  which  its  most  uncompromis- 
ing advocate  admits  that  "  there  is  no  experi- 
mental evidence  in  its  favour."  So  much  the 
worse  for  "the  doctrine  of  Evolution." 

The  position  assumed  by  Mr.  Huxley  himself 
in  reference  to  this  subject  is  peculiar;  so  pecu- 
liar, indeed,  that  it  had  better  be  stated  in  his 
own  words.  In  his  Presidential  Address  to 
the  British  Association  for  the  Advancement 
of  Science  (1870),  he  discusses  the  conflicting 
claims  of  Biogenesis  and  Abiogenesis,  in  one  of. 
the  ablest  and  most  lucid  expositions  ever  given 
of  that  problem.  By  the  former  term  he  de- 
notes "the  hypothesis  that  living  matter  always 
arises  by  the  agency  of  pre-existing  living 
matter;"  the  latter  term  denotes  the  contrary 
doctrine — that  living  matter  may  be  produced 
by  matter  not  living. 

The  first  distinct  enunciation  of  the   hypo- 


96  Scientific  Sophisms. 

thesis  that  all  living  matter  has  sprung  from 
pre-existing  living  matter,  he  traces  not  to  our 
great  countryman,  Harvey,  but  to  a  contem- 
porary though  a  junior  of  Harvey,  and  trained 
in  the  same  schools,  Francesco  Redi.  And  he 
concludes  his  sketch  of  the  progress  of  the 
doctrine,  and  of  the  successive  experiments  by 
which  its  truth  has  been  established,  in  these 
words  :  "  So  much  for  the  history  of  the  progress 
of  Redi's  great  doctrine  of  Biogenesis,  which 
appears  to  me,  with  the  limitations  I  have 
expressed,  to  be  victorious  along  the  whole  line 
at  the  present  day."  * 

His  own  adhesion  to  this  "great  doctrine  of 
Biogenesis  "  is  thus  stated  :  "  If  in  the  present 
state  of  science  the  alternative  is  offered  us, — 
cither  germs  can  stand  a  greater  heat  than  has 
been  supposed,  or  the  molecules  of  dead  matter, 
for  no  valid  or  intelligible  reason  that  is  as- 
signed, are  able  to  rearrange  themselves  into 
living  bodies,  exactly  such  as  can  be  demon- 
strated to  be  frequently  produced  another  way, 
— I  cannot  understand  how  choice  can  be,  even 
for  a  moment,  doubtful. 

"  But  though  I  cannot  express  this  conviction 
of  mine  too  strongly,  I  must  carefully  guard 
myself  against  the  supposition  that  I  intend  to 
1  "  Critiques  and  Addresses,"  p.  239. 


Sophisms.  9  7 

suggest  that  no  such  thing  as  Ablogenesis  ever 
has  taken  place  in  the  past,  or  ever  will  take 
place  in  the  future.  With  organic  chemistry, 
molecular  physics,  and  physiology  yet  in  their 
infancy,  and  every  day  making  prodigious  strides, 
I  think  it  would  be  the  height  of  presumption 
for  any  man  to  say  that  the  conditions  under 
which  matter  assumes  the  properties  we  call 
'  vital '  may  not  some  day  be  artificially  brought 
together.  All  I  feel  justified  in  affirming  is, 
that  I  see  no  reason  for  believing  that  the  feat 
has  been  performed  yet."1 

Analysing  this  declaration  we  have  three 
several  propositions.  Spontaneous  generation 
is  a  dogma  for  which  "no^alid  or  intelligible 
reason  is  assigned."  As  between  life  derived 
Irom  antecedent  life,  and  life  derived  from  some- 
thing that  was  not  alive,  Professor  Huxley 
"cannot  understand  how  choice  can  be,  even 
for  a  moment,  doubtful."  And  "this  convic- 
tion "  of  his  he  "  cannot  express  too  strongly." 
At  the  same  time,  however,  he  is  not  quite  sure 
that  the  opposite  of  all  this  may  not  be  also 
true — of  some  possible  future,  or  perhaps  even 
of  some  actual  past. 

But  the  climax  is  yet  to  come.  The  declara- 
tion above  quoted, — "  All  I  feel  justified  in  af- 
1  "  Critiques  and  Addresses,"  p.  238. 


98  Scientific  Sophisms. 

firming  is,  that  I  see  no  reason  for  believing  that 
the  feat  has  been  performed  yet," — rests  on 
reasons  at  once  valid  and  intelligible,  assignable 
and  assigned.  Any  declaration,  therefore,  an- 
tagonistic to  this,  must  of  necessity  be  devoid 
of  reason.  Yet  such  is  precisely  the  declaration 
which,  in  the  very  next  paragraph,  Professor 
Huxley  proceeds  to  make.  "If  it  were  given 
me,"  he  says,  "to  look  beyond  the  abyss  of 
geologically-recorded  time  ...  I  should 
expect  to  be  a  witness  of  the  evolution  of  living 
protoplasm  from  not  living  matter." l  He  would 
"  expect  to  witness,"  in  that  "  remote  period,"  the 
performance  of  a  feat  which  he  sees  "  no  reason 
for  believing  "  has  ever  "  been  performed  yet." 

Professor  Tyndall  believes  that  if  a  planet 
were  "  carved  from  the  sun,  set  spinning  round 
an  axis,  and  revolving  round  the  sun  at  a  dis- 
tance from  him  equal  to  that  of  our  earth,"3 
one  of  the  "  consequences  of  its  refrigeration  " 
would  be  "the  development  of  organic  forms." 
If  you  ask  what  reason  can  be  assigned  for  this 
belief,  you  are  asked  in  turn,  "Who  will  set 
limits  to  the  possible  play  of  molecules  in  a 
cooling  planet?"3 

This    conclusive    question    is    suggestive    of 

1  "  Critiques  and  Addresses,"  p.  239. 
*  "  Fragments  of  Science."  Sixth  Edition  (1879),  v°l-  "• 
p.  51.  *  Ibid. 


Sophisms.  99 

another : — "  Who  will  set  limits  to  the  possible 
play  of  Professor  Tyndall's  scientific  imagina- 
tion ?"  Why  should  a  cooling  planet  be  so  much 
more  likely  to  produce  minute  organisms,  and  to 
develope  "  organic  forms,"  than  a  cooling  flask  ? 
Or,  as  Dr.  Bastian  pertinently  puts  it, "  If  such 
synthetic  processes  took  place  then,  why  should 
they  not  take  place  now  ?  Why  should  the 
inherent  molecular  properties  of  various  kinds  of 
matter  have  undergone  so  much  alteration  ?  " l 

The  opening  sentences  of  the  Belfast  Address 
are  vitiated  by  a  fallacy  which  reappears  in 
other  places  with  the  regularity  of  a  recurring 
decimal.  "An  impulse  inherent  in  primeval 
man,"  says  Dr.  Tyndall,  "turned  his  thoughts 
and  questionings  betimes  towards  the  sources 
of  natural  phenomena.  The  same  impulse,  in- 
herited and  intensified,  is  the  spur  of  scientific 
action  to-day.  Determined  by  it,  by  a  process 
of  abstraction  from  experience  we  form  physical 
theories  which  lie  beyond  the  pale  of  experience, 
but  which  satisfy  the  desire  of  the  mind  to  see 
every  natural  occurrence  resting  upon  a  cause." 

Now,  since  of  this  "  primeval  man  "  nothing 
whatever  is  known,  on  what  ground  can  it  be 
affirmed  that  he  possessed  the  "inherent  im- 
pulse "  here  attributed  to  him  ?  All  that  is 
1  u  Beginnings  of  Life,"  Pref.  p.  x. 


ioo  Scientific  Sophisms. 

known  of  him  is  that  his  "  progenitors  "  "  could 
be  not  called  human."  l  How  came  he  then  by 
this  "  inherent  "  impulse — an  impulse  now  "  in- 
herited "  as  the  distinctive  characteristic  of  all 
mankind — yet  not  possessed  by  his  non-human 
ancestors,  and  therefore  not  derived  from  them  ? 
Inexplicable  however  as  is  this  impulse,  it  is 
as  nothing  when  compared  with  the  theories  to 
which  it  has  given  rise.  The  theories  have  been 
-invented  to  satisfy  a  desire  of  the  mind  :  the 
desire  "  to  see  every  natural  occurrence  resting 
upon  a  cause."  And  to  satisfy  this  desire  the 
scientific  imagination  of  to-day  forms  "  physical 
theories  which  lie  beyond  the  pale  of  expe- 
rience," and  rest — upon  nothing.  If,  as  the  same 
eminent  authority  has  told  us,  a  "theoretic 
conception"  is  a  mere  " intellectual  figment," 
until  it  has  been  "verified"  by  "observation 
and  experiment,"  how  is  it  possible  that 
"  theories  which  lie  beyond  the  pale  of  expe- 
rience," should  satisfy  a  mind  that  desires  "to 
see  every  natural  occurrence  resting  upon  a 
cause  "  ?  "  Physical  theories,"  to  be  satisfactory 
to  such  a  mind,  must  lie  within — and  not 
beyond — the  pale  of  experience. 
"  The  porter  sits  down  on  the  weight  which  he  bore," 

1  Professor  Tyndall's  (Birmingham  Address)  "  Science 
and  Man,"  p.  61 1. 


Sophisms.  161 

says  Wordsworth.  And  this  he  may  do  with 
perfect  safety,  even  on  the  parapet  of  London 
Bridge ;  for  that  is  within  the  pale  of  expe- 
rience. But  woe  to  the  unlucky  wight  who, 
in  the  attempt  to  satisfy  his  desire  for  rest, 
ventures  to  sit  down  on  some  "  abstraction " 
outside  the  parapet;  for  that  is  "beyond  the 
pale  of  experience." 

"  Trace  the  line  of  life  backwards,"  says  our 
Lucretian,  "  and  see  it  approaching  more  and 
more  to  what  we  call  the  purely  physical  con- 
dition. .  .  .  We  break  a  magnet  and  find 
two  poles  in  each  of  its  fragments.  We  con- 
tinue the  process  of  breaking ;  but,  however 
small  the  parts,  each  carries  with  it,  though 
enfeebled,  the  polarity  of  the  whole.  And 
when  we  can  break  no  longer,  we  prolong  the 
intellectual  vision  to  the  polar  molecules.  Are 
we  not  urged  to  do  something  similar  in  the  case 
of  life  ?  .  .  .  Believing  as  I  do  in  the  con- 
tinuity of  Nature,  I  cannot  stop  abruptly  where 
our  microscopes  cease  to  be  of  use.  Here  the 
vision  of  the  mind  authoritatively  supplements 
the  vision  of  the  eye.  By  an  intellectual  neces- 
sity I  cross  the  boundary  of  the  experimental 
evidence,  and  discern  in  Matter  .  .  .  the 
promise  and  potency  of  all  terrestrial  Life."  x 
1  "  Belfast  Address,"  p.  55. 


io2  Scientific  Sophisms. 

This  "potency"  of  matter,  then,  when  dis- 
cerned at  all,  is  discerned  only  "  beyond  the 
pale  of  experience,"  "across  the  boundary  of 
experimental  evidence."  Scientifically,  there- 
fore, it  is  non-existent ;  a  mere  "  intellectual 
figment,"  the  product  of  an  imaginary  "  intel- 
lectual necessity "  :  an  "  unverified  theoretic 
conception,"  nothing  more  ;  and  this  only  when 
it  has  been  actually  "discerned."  But,  as 
simple  matter  of  fact,  it  has  never  yet  been 
actually  discerned.  Professor  Tyndall  himself 
has  not  thus  discerned  it.  What  he  here  calls 
discernment  he  elsewhere  calls  the  scientific  use 
of  the  Imagination.  It  is  he  himself  who  war- 
rants the  affirmation  that  this  alleged  "  potency 
of  all  terrestrial  Life  "  has  not  been  discerned 
in  Matter  at  all ;  it  has  only  been  imagined. 
"  Conscious  life "  is  a  part,  and  the  principal 
part,  of  "  all  terrestrial  life."  Has  the  life  of  a 
fern  or  an  oak  this  potential  "  consciousness  "  ? 
It  is  Dr.  Tyndall  who  answers,  "  No  man  can 
tell."  l  Does  pig  iron  possess  this  potency  of 
conscious  cogitation  ?  or  does  the  loftiest  granite 
needle  of  the  Alps  cheer  its  eternal  solitude 
with  the  reflection,  "  Cogito,  ergo  sum  "  f  There 

1  "  Materialism  and  its  Opponents,"  Fortnightly  Re- 
view, voL  xviii.  p.  595.  "  Fragments  of  Science,"  Intro- 
duction. 


Sophisms.  103 

Is  no  answer.  They  make  no  sign.  No  such 
promise  or  potency  is  exhibited,  and  it  is  there- 
fore no  wonder  that  it  is  not  discerned.  But 
alter  the  conditions  of  discernment,  says  Dr. 
Tyndall,  and  then  "  I  can  imagine  not  only  the 
vegetable,  but  the  mineral  world,  responsiv.e  to 
the  proper  irritants."  l  Not,  "I  have  discerned"; 
nor  even  I  can  discern ;  but  only  "  I  can 
imagine  !  " 

And  here  the  matter  might  be  left,  were  it 
not  that  Dr.  Tyndall  has  himself  compelled  us 
to  ask  whether  he  has  not  estimated  too  highly 
his  own  power  of  imagination.  For  how  can 
even  he  imagine  that  which  he  himself  tells  us 
is  unimaginable  ?  The  passage  from  physics 
to  consciousness,  he  tells  us,2  "  is  unthinkable." 
"You  cannot  satisfy  the  human  understanding 
in  its  demand  for  logical  continuity  between 
molecular  processes  and  the  phenomena  of  con- 
sciousness. This  is  a  rock  on  which  materialism 
must  inevitably  split  whenever  it  pretends  to  be 
a  complete  philosophy  of  life." 8  Nor  would 
the  result  be  altered  if  even  the  experiment 
could  be  made  under  the  altered  conditions 

1  "Materialism  and  its  Opponents,"  Fortnightly  Re- 
view, vol.  xviii.  p.  595.  "  Fragments  of  Science/'  Intro- 
duction. 

Ibid,  p.  589.  *  "  Belfast  Address,"  p.  33. 


104  Scientific  Sophisms. 

which  in  the  passage  above  cited,  it  was  found 
necessary  to  hypothecate.  "  Alter  the  capa- 
city "  of  the  observer,  it  was  then  said,  "  and 
the  evidence  would  alter  too." l  Yet  here, 
only  six  pages  earlier,  in  the  very  same  paper, 
we  are  told  :  "  Were  our  minds  and  senses  so 
expanded,  strengthened,  and  illuminated,  as  to 
enable  us  to  see  and  feel  the  very  molecules  of 
the  brain ;  were  we  capable  of  following  all 
their  motions,  all  their  groupings,  all  their 
electric  discharges,  if  such  there  be ;  and  were 
we  intimately  acquainted  with  the  correspond- 
ing states  of  thought  and  feeling,  we  should 
be  as  tar  as  ever  from  the  solution  ot  the 
problem,  'How  are  these  physical  processes 
connected  with  the  facts  of  consciousness  ? ' 
The  chasm  between  the  two  classes  of  pheno- 
mena would  still  remain  intellectually  im- 
passable." * 

Yet  notwithstanding  all  this  Dr  Tyndall 
formally  proclaims  his  "  belief "  "  in  the  contin- 
uity of  Nature."  The  "  continuity  "  of  an  "  im- 
passable chasm  "  !  A  chasm  "  intellectually  im- 
passable "  ;  and  yet  "  by  an  intellectual  neces- 
sity "  he  crosses  it  "  Two  classes  of  pheno- 
mena," and  no  .possible  means  of  transition 

1  "  Materialism  and  its  Opponents,"  p.  595. 
*  Ibid.,  p.  589. 


Sophisms.  105 

from  one  to  the  other.  For,  in  order  to  "  dis- 
cern in  matter  the  promise"  of  conscious  life, 
we  must  be  able,' by  observation  of  its  merely 
physical  movements,  to  forecast,  in  a  world 
as  yet  insentient,  the  future  phenomena  of 
thought  and  feeling.  Yet  this  is  precisely  the 
transition  which  is  pronounced  "  unthinkable." 
"  We  do  not  possess  the  intellectual  organ, 
nor  apparently  any  rudiment  of  the  organ, 
which  would  enable  us  to  pass,  by  a  process 
of  reasoning,  from  the  one  to  the  other. 
They  appear  together,  but  we  do  not  know 
why,"1 

It  is  an  instructive  spectacle.  Professor 
Huxley  "  expecting  "  to  witness,  in  the  remote 
past,  the  performance  of  a  feat  which  he  sees 
"no  reason  for  believing"  has  ever  yet  been 
performed;  and  Professor  Tyndalh"  by  an  in- 
tellectual necessity  "  and  a  "  vision  of  the  mind," 
crossing  "the  chasm"  "intellectually  impass- 
able" which  separates  two  classes  of  pheno- 
mena, although  he  does  "  not  possess  the  intel- 
lectual organ,  nor  apparently  any  rudiment  of 
the  organ,  which  would  enable  him  to  pass,  by 
a  process  of  reasoning,  from  the  one  to  the 
other." 

1  "  Materialism  and  its  Opponents,"  p.  589. 


io6  Scientific  Sophisms. 

Horace  was  undoubtedly  right : — 
".    .     .    quandoque  bonus  dormitat  Homerus."  * 

But  had  he  lived  in  our  time,  and  written  of 
the  Homers  of  modern  materialism ;  had  he 
heard  their  conjectural  hypotheses,  their  con- 
flicting asseverations,  their  autocratic  dogma- 
tism ; — 

"  Matter  is  the  origin  of  all  that  exists ;  all 
natural  and  mental  forces  are  inherent  in  it "  : 8 
"All  the  natural  bodies  with  which  we  are 
acquainted  are  equally  living:  the  distinction 
which  has  been  held  as  existing  between  tht 
living  and  tJie  dead  does  not  really  exist : " 8 
"  The  eternal  is  the  nothing  of  nature  : "  "There 
is  no  other  science  than  that  which  treats  of 
nothing :"  4  "  Holothuriae  engender  snails  ;" 5  and 
"  gazing  upon  a  snail,  one  believes  that  he  finds 
the  prophesying  goddess  sitting  upon  the  tri- 
pod ;"  for  "a  snail  is  an  exalted  symbol  of 
mind,  slumbering  deeply  within  itself : " 6  while 

1  "  Ars  Poet.,"  359. 

2  Buchner's  "  Kraft  und  Stoff."  (Collingwood's  Transla- 
tion) p.  32. 

3  "  Naturliche  Schopfungsgeschichte."     By  Dr.  Ernst 
HaeckeL     Sixth  Edition,  p.  21. 

4  "  Physiophilosophy  "  of  Prof.  Oken. 
6  Buchner's  "  Kraft  und  Stoff,"  p.  80, 
•  Oken. 


Sophisms*  107 

"  Self-consciousness  is  a  living  ellipse  : " l  and 
Man  is  merely  an  automaton,  though  "a  con- 
scious automaton;"  an  "automaton  endowed 
with  free  will : "  2— 

Had  Horace  heard  all  this,  he  would  have 
had  something  more  to  say  about  this  snail-like 
"  mind,  slumbering  deeply ; "  and  would  have 
used  a  much  stronger  word  than  "  quandoque." 

1  Oken. 

2  Prof.  Huxley,  in  The  Fortnightly  Review,  November, 
1874,  p.  577- 


CHAPTER  VII. 
PROTOPLASM. 

THE  word  "  protoplasm "  was  invented  in  the 
year  1846,  by  the  eminent  German  botanist 
Von  Mohl,  as  a  name  for  one  portion  of  those 
nitrogenous  contents  of  the  cells  of  living 
plants,  the  close  chemical  resemblance  of  which 
to  the  essential  constituents  of  living  animals 
had  been  in  that  same  year,  emphatically 
pointed  out  by  the  botanist  Payen.  But  if, 
pushing  our  investigation  beyond  the  origin  of 
the  name,  we  inquire  as  to  the  nature  of  the 
thing,  and  ask  What  is  Protoplasm  ?  the  answer 
to  that  question  involves  a  reference  to  the 
historical  progress  of  the  physiological  cell 
theory. 

That  theory  may  be  said  to  have  wholly 
grown  up  since  Dr.  John  Hunter  wrote  his 
celebrated  work  "  On  the  Nature  of  the  Blood." 
According  to  Dr.  Hunter,  new  growths  de- 
pended on  an  exudation  of  the  plasma  of  the 
blood,  in  which,  by  virtue  of  its  own  plasticity, 


Scientific  Sophisms.  109 

• 

vessels  formed,  and  conditioned  the  further  pro- 
gress. When,  at  a  later  date,  the  conception  of 
a  cell  had  been  arrived  at,  Schleiden,  for  start- 
ing point,  required  an  intracellular  plasma, 
and  Schwann,  a  structureless  exudation,  in 
which  minute  granules,  if  not  indeed  already 
pre-existent,  formed,  and  by  aggregation  grew 
into  nuclei,  round  which  singly  the  production 
of  a  membrane  at  length  enclosed  a  cell. 
Brown  demonstrated  a  nucleus  in  the  vegetable 
cell ;  as  Valentin  subsequently  did  in  the 
animal  one ;  Miiller  insisted  on  the  analogy  be- 
tween animal  and  vegetable  tissue;  Schwann's 
labour  in  completing  the  theory  of  the  animal 
cell  may  be  regarded  as  completing  the  first 
stage  of  the  cell  theory  :  but  the  raising  it  to 
the  second  stage  must  be  attributed  to  the 
wonderful  ability  of  Virchow.  And  it  is  to  the 
resolution  of  this  second  stage  that  we  owe  the 
word  Protoplasm. 

In  Virchow's  view,  the  body  constituted  a 
free  state  of  individual  subjects,  with  equal 
rights  but  unequal  capacities.  These  were  the 
cells,  which  consisted  each  of  an  enclosing 
membrane,  and  an  enclosed  nucleus  with  sur- 
rpunding  intracellular  matrix  or  matter.  These 
cells  propagated  themselves,  chiefly  by  partition 
Or  division  ;  and  the  fundamental  principle  of 


1 1  o  Protoplasm. 

the  entire  theory  was  expressed  in  the  dictum, 
"  Omnis  cellula  e  cellula? 

The  first  step  in  resolution  of  this  theory  was 
the  elimination  of  the  investing  membrane. 
Such  membrane  may  and  does  ultimately  form  ; 
but  in  the  first  instance,  for  the  most  part,  the 
cell  is  naked.  The  second  step  was  the  elimin- 
ation, or  at  least  the  subordination,  of  the 
nucleus.  The  nucleus  is  now  discovered  to  be 
necessary  neither  to  the  division  nor  to  the 
existence  of  the  cell. 

Thus,  then,  stripped  of  its  membrane,  relieved 
of  its  nucleus,  what  now  remains  for  the  cell  ? 
Nothing,  but  that  which  was  the  contained 
matter,  the  intracellular  matrix,  and  is — Proto- 
plasm. 

The  application  of  the  word,  however,  to  the 
element  in  question,  like  the  history  of  the 
thing,  was  marked  by  several  stages.  First 
came  Dujardin's  discovery  of  sarcode.  Then, 
as  above  mentioned,  Von  Mohl's  introduction 
of  the  term  protoplasm  as  the  name  for  the 
layer  of  the  vegetable  cell  that  lined  the  cellu- 
lose, and  enclosed  the  nucleus.  Cohn,  four 
years  later,  proclaimed  "the  protoplasm  of  the 
botanist,  and  the  contractile  substance  and 
sarcode  of  the  zoologist"  to  be,  "if  not  identical, 
yet  in  a  high  degree  analogous  substances." 


Scientific  Sophisms.  1 1 1 

Remak  first  extended  the  use  of  the  term  pro- 
toplasm from  the  layer  which  bore  that  name  in 
the  vegetable  cell  to  the  analogous  element  in 
the  animal  cell ;  but  "  it  was  Max  Schultze,  in 
particular,  who  by  applying  the  name  to  the 
intracellular  matrix,  or  contained  matter,  when 
divested  of  membrane,  and  by  identifying  this 
substance  itself  with  sarcode,  first  fairly  estab- 
lished protoplasm,  name  and  thing,  in  its 
present  position." 

In  England,  however,  it  is  Professor  Huxley 
who,  by  his  brilliant  and  well-known  Essay  on 
this  subject  in  the  Fortnightly  Review  for  Feb- 
ruary, 1869,  has  acquired  a  prominence,  though 
by  no  means  a  pre-eminence,  all  his  own.  Tak- 
ing for  his  theme  the  "  Physical  Basis  of  Life," 
and  treading  in  the  track  of  that  "  host  of  in- 
vestigators "  of  whom  he  tells  us  that  they 
"have  accumulated  evidence,  morphological, 
physiological,  and  chemical,"  in  favour  of  that 
"  immense  unite  de  composition  elementaire 
dans  tous  les  corps  vivants  de  la  nature,"  of 
which  Payen  wrote  so  clearly  nearly  thirty-five 
years  ago ;  he  combats  "  the  widely-spread 
conception  of  life  as  a  something  which  works 
through  matter,  but  is  independent  of  it"; 
and  affirms,  on  the  contrary,  "  that  matter  and 
life  are  inseparably  connected,  and  that  there  is 


1 1 2  Protoplasm. 

one  kind  of  matter  which  is  common  to  all 
living  beings." 

Notwithstanding  the  wide  diversity  that  pre- 
sents itself  to  our  view  in  the  countless  varieties 
of  living  beings,  it  yet  is  true  that  all  vegetable 
and  animal  tissues  without  exception,  from  that 
of  the  brightly  coloured  lichen  on  the  rock,  to 
that  of  the  painter  whj  admires  or  of  the 
botanist  who  dissects  it,  are  essentially  one  in 
composition  and  in  structure.  The  microscopic 
fungi  clustering  by  millions  within  the  body  of  a 
single  fly,  the  giant  pine  of  California  towering 
to  the  height  of  a  cathedral  spire,  the  Indian 
fig-tree  covering  acres  with  its  profound  shadow, 
animalcules  minute  enough  to  dance  in  myriads 
on  the  point  of  a  needle,  and  the  huge  leviathan 
of  the  deep,  the  flower  that  a  girl  wears  in  her 
hair,  and  the  blood  that  courses  through  her 
veins,  are,  each  and  all,  smaller  or  larger  multi- 
ples or  aggregates  of  one  and  the  same  structural 
unit,  and  all  therefore  ultimately  resolvable 
into  the  same  identical  elements.  That  unit 
is  a  corpuscle  composed  of  oxygen,  hydrogen, 
nitrogen,  and  carbon.  Hydrogen,  with  oxygen, 
forms  water ;  carbon,  with  oxygen,  carbonic 
acid  ;  and  hydrogen,  with  nitrogen,  ammonia, 
These  three  compounds — water,  carbonic  acid, 
and  ammonia, — in  like  manner,  when  combined 
form  protoplasm. 


Scientific  Sophisms.  113 

In  all  this,  however,  there  is  nothing  new  but 
the  nomenclature. 1  But  the  case  is  widely 
altered  when  Mr.  Huxley  proceeds  to  assert 
that  amid  all  the  diversities  of  living  things  and 
living  beings  there  exists  a  threefold  unity :  a 
unity  of  faculty,  a  unity  of  form,  and  a  unity  of 
substance.  In  relation  to  the  first  of  these,  for 
example,  faculty,  power,  activity ;  according 
to  Mr.  Huxley,  even  human  activities  must  be 
referred  to  three  categories — contractility,  ali- 
mentation, and  reproduction  ;  and  for  the  lower 
forms  of  life,  whether  animal  or  vegetable,  there 
are  no  fewer  than  these  same  three.  The 
granulated,  semi-fluid  layer  which  constitutes 
the  lining  of  the  woody  case  of  the  nettle-sting 
is  possessed  of  contractility.  And  in  this 
possession  of  contractile  substance,  other  plants 
are  as  the  nettle,  and  all  animals  are  as  plants. 
Protoplasm  is  common  to  the  whole  of  them  ; 
and  this  lining  in  the  sting  of  the  nettle  is  pro- 
toplasm. So  that  between  the  powers  of  the 
lowest  plant  or  animal  and  those  of  the  highest, 
the  difference  is  one  not  of  kind,  but  only  of 
degree.  The  colourless  blood-corpuscles  in 

1  Aixd  this  nomenclature,  though  new,  is  by  no  means 
improved.  It  is  inexact,  indefinite,  indiscriminate,  and 
therefore  necessarily  misleading.  See  below  ;  especially 
pages  132,  135-142. 


H4  Protoplasm. 

man  and  the  other  animals  are  identical  with 
the  protoplasm  of  the  nettle  ;  and  he,  not  less 
than  they,  at  first  consisted  of  nothing  more 
than  an  aggregation  of  such  corpuscles.  Pro- 
toplasm is  their  common  constituent ;  in  proto- 
plasm they  have  their  common  origin.  At  last, 
as  at  first,  all  that  lives,  and  every  part  of  all 
that  lives,  is  but — nucleated  or  unnucleated, 
modified  or  unmodified — protoplasm. 

This  series  of  assertions  culminates  in  a 
dogma  still  more  astounding.  Protoplasm,  from 
being  "  the  basis,"  becomes  "  the  matter  of  life." 
Apart  from  this  matter,  life  is  unknown.  The 
"phenomena  of  life,"  however  vast  and  varied, 
exhibit  neither  force  nor  faculty  that  is  not 
derived  from  the  chemical  constituents  of  its 
material  "basis."  All  the  activities  of  life: — 
vegetable,  animal,  human  ;  physical,  intellec- 
tual, religious — arise  solely  (we  are  told)  from 
"  the  arrangement  of  the  molecules  of  ordinary 
matter."  What  reason  is  there,  for  instance, 
why  thought  should  not  be  termed  a  property 
of  thinking  protoplasm,  just  as  congelation  is  a 
property  of  water,  or  centrifugience  of  gas  ? 
Professor  Huxley  protests  that  he  is  aware  of 
no  reason.  We  call,  he  says,  the  several  pheno- 
mena which  are  peculiar  to  water  "the  pro- 
perties of  water,  and  do  not  hesitate  to  believe 


Scientific  Sophisms.  1 1 5 

that  in  some  way  or  other  they  result  from  the 
properties  of  the  component  elements  of  water. 
We  do  not  assume  that  something  called 
aquosity  entered  into  and  took  possession  of  the 
oxide  of  hydrogen  as  soon  as  it  was  formed, 
and  then  guided  the  aqueous  particles  to  their 
places  in  the  facets  of  the  crystal  or  among  the 
leaflets  of  the  hoar-frost."  Why,  then,  "when 
carbonic  acid,  water,  and  ammonia  disappear, 
and  in  their  place,  under  the  influence  of  pre- 
existing protoplasm,  an  equivalent  weight  of 
the  matter  of  life  makes  its  appearance,"  should 
we  assume,  in  the  living  matter,  the  existence 
of  "a  something  which  has  no  representative 
or  correlative  in  the  unliving  matter  that  gave 
rise  to  it"?  Why  imagine  that  into  the  newly 
formed  hydro-nitrogenised  oxide  of  carbon  a 
something  called  vitality  entered  and  took 
possession  ?  "  What  better  philosophic  status 
has  vitality  than  aquosity?" 

These  questions,  as  will  presently  appear, 
present  no  difficulty.  They  admit  of  answers 
too  complete  to  leave  room  for  further  question. 
The  only  difficulty  is  that  which  presents  itself 
when  we  attempt  to  determine  Professor  Hux- 
ley's relation  to  them.  For  incredible  as  it 
must  seem  to  those  not  acquainted  with  the 
facts,  the  propositions  above  cited  are  at  once 


1 1 6  Protoplasm. 

the  subject  of  his  affirmation  and  of  his  denial. 
Dr.  Stirling  concludes  his  refutation  of  them  in 
a  sentence  to  which  Professor  Huxley  has  at- 
tempted a  reply.  The  sentence  is  this: — 

"  In  short,  the  whole  position  of  Mr.  Huxley,  that  all 
organisms  consist  alike  of  the  same  life-matter,  which 
lifd-matter  is,  for  its  part,  due  only  to  chemistry,  must  be 
'  pronounced  untenable,' — nor  less  untenable  the  material- 
ism he  would  found  on  it."  * 

And  this  is  the  reply:— 

"  The  paragraph  contains  three  distinct  assertions  con- 
cerning my  views,  and  just  the  same  number  of  utter  mis- 
representations of  them."  The  first  [that  "  all  organisms 
consist  alike  of  the  same  life-matter "]  "  turns  on  the 
ambiguity  of  the  word  '  same ' "  ;  the  second  [that  this 
"life-matter  is  due  only  to  chemistry"]  "is  in  my  judg- 
ment absurd,  and  certainly  I  have  never  said  anything 
resembling  it ;  while  as  to  Number  3,  one  great  object 
of  my  Essay  *  was  to  show  that  what  is  called  '  mate- 
rialism '  has  no  sound  philosophical  basis."  * 

1  "As   Regards  Protoplasm."     By  James  Hutchinson 
Stirling,   F.R.C.S.,   and  LL.D.  Edinburgh.     Longmans, 

1872,  p.  58. 

2  " '  One  great  object  of  my  Essay,'  says  Mr.  Huxley  ! 
Yes,   truly ;  but   what   of  the  other — great,  greater,  and 
greatest — object  ?     '  Utter  misrepresentation  ! '     The  only 

utter  misrepresentation  concerned  here  is Pshaw  !  the 

whole  thing  is  beneath  speech."     ("As  Regards  Proto- 
plasm," ut  sup.,  p.  59.) 

s  "  Yeast,"  in  "  Critiques  and  Addresses."   Macmillan, 

1873,  P-  90. 


Scientific  Sophisms.  1 1 7 

In  rejoinder,  Dr.  Stirling  cites  "  Mr.  Huxley's 
own  phrases "  to  prove  that  the  alleged  am- 
biguity does  not  exist :  "  There  is  such  a  thing 
as  a  physical  basis  or  matter  of  life ; "  .  .  . 
or  "£fc  physical  basis  or  matter  of  life."  There 
is  "  a  single  physical  basis  of  life,"  and  through 
its  unity,  "  the  whole  living  world  "  is  pervaded 
by  "a  threefold  unity" — "namely  a  unity  of 
power  or  faculty,  a  unity  of  form,  and  a  unity 
of  substantial  composition." 

On  the  second  point ;  that  "  life-matter "  is 
"due  only  to  chemistry,"  Dr.  Stirling  is  "pleased 
to  think  that  Mr.  Huxley  has  now  come  to 
consider  such  an  opinion  '  absurd,'  "  but  repeats 
that  "he  has  always,  and  everywhere,  for  all 
that,  described  his  'life-matter  as  due  .to 
chemistry,' "  and  adds,  "  Here  are  a  few  ex- 
amples : " — 

" '  If  the  properties  of  water  may  be  properly  said  to 
result  from  the  nature  and  disposition  of  its  component 
molecules,  I  can  find  no  intelligible  ground  for  refusing 
to  say  that  the  properties  of  protoplasm  result  from  the 
nature  and  disposition  of  its  molecules.' 

"  Is  it  possible  for  words  more  definitely  to 
convey  the  statement  that  the  properties  of 
water  and  protoplasm  are  precisely  on  the  same 
level,  and  that  as  the  former  are  of  molecular 
(physical,  chemical)  origin,  so  are  the  latter? 


1 1 8  Protoplasm. 

Again,  after  having  told  us  that  protoplasm  is 
carbonic  acid,  water,  and  ammonia,  '  which  cer- 
tainly possess  no  properties  but  those  of  ordinary 
matter/  he  proceeds  to  speak  as  follows : — 

"'Carbon,  hydrogen,  oxygen,  and  nitrogen  are  all  life- 
less bodies.  Of  these,  carbon  and  oxygen  unite  in  certain 
proportions,  and  under  certain  conditions,  to  give  rise  to 
carbonic  acid  ;  hydrogen  and  oxygen  produce  water ; 
nitrogen  and  hydrogen  give  rise  to  ammonia.  These  new 
compounds,  like  the  elementary  bodies  of  which  they  are 
composed,  are  lifeless.' 

"So  far  then,  surely,  I  am  allowed  to  say 
that  these  new  compounds  are  due  to  chemistry. 
Observe  now  what  follows : — 

"'But  when  they'  (the  compounds)  'are  brought  to- 
gether, under  certain  conditions,  they  give  rise  to  the 
still  more  complex  body  protoplasm,  and  this  protoplasm 
exhibits  the  phenomena  of  life.  I  see  no  break  in  this 
series  of  steps  in  molecular  complication,  and  I  am  un- 
able to  understand  why  the  language  which  is  applicable 
to  any  one  term  of  the  series  may  not  be  used  to  any  of 
the  others.' 

"  Here,  evidently,  I  am  ordered  by  Mr.  Hux- 
ley himself,  not  to  change  my  language,  but 
to  characterise  these  latter  results  as  I  charac- 
terised those  former  ones.  If  I  spoke  then  of 
ammonia,  etc.,  as  due  to  chemistry,  so  must 
I  now  speak  of  protoplasm,  life- matter,  as  due 
to  chemistry — a  statement  which  Mr.  Huxley 


Scientific  Sophisms.  1 1 9 

not  only  orders  me  to  make,  but  makes  himself. 
Very  curious  all  this,  then.  When  I  do  what 
he  bids  me  do,  when  I  say  what  he  says — that 
if  ammonia,  etc.,  are  due  to  chemistry,  proto- 
plasm is  also  due  to  chemistry — Mr.  Huxley 
turns  round  and  calls  out  that  I  am  saying  an 
'absurdity,'  which  he,  for  his  part,  'certainly 
never  said ! '  But  let  me  make  just  one  other 
quotation : — 

" '  When  hydrogen  and  oxygen  are  mixed  in  a  certain 
proportion,  and  an  electric  spark  is  passed  through  them, 
they  disappear,  and  a  quantity  of  water  equal  in  weight 
to  the  sum  of  their  weights  appears  in  their  place.' 

"  Now,  no  one  in  his  senses  will  dispute  that 
this  is  a  question  of  chemistry,  and  of  nothing 
but  chemistry;  but  it  is  Mr.  Huxley  himself 
who  asks  in  immediate  and  direct  reference 
here : — 

" '  Is  the  case  in  any  way  changed  when  carbonic  acid, 
water,  and  ammonia  disappear,  and  in  their  place,  under 
the  influence  of  pre-existing  living  protoplasm,  an  equiva- 
lent weight  of  the  matter  of  life  makes  its  appearance  ?' 

"  Surely  Mr.  Huxley  has  no  object  whatever 
here  but  to  place  before  us  the  genesis  of  proto- 
plasm, and  surely  also  this  genesis  is  a  purely 
chemical  one !  The  very  '  influence  of  pre- 
existing living  protoplasm,' — which  pre-existcnce 


1 20  Protoplasm. 

could  not  itself  exist  for  the  benefit  of  the  first 
protoplasm  that  came  into  existence, — is  asserted 
to  be  in  precisely  the  same  case  with  reference 
to  the  one  process  as  that  of  the  electric  spark 
with  reference  to  the  other.  And  yet,  in  the 
teeth  of  such  passages,  Mr.  Huxley  feels  himself 
at  liberty  to  say  now,  'Statement  Number  2 
is,  in  my  judgment,  absurd,  and  certainly  I  have 
never  said  anything  resembling  if.'  It  is  a  pity 
to  see  a  man  in  the  position  of  Mr.  Huxley  so 
strangely  forget  himself! " 

On  the  third  head— Mr.  Huxley's  "mate- 
rialism"— Dr.  Stirling's  refutation  is  equally 
conclusive,  but  at  the  same  time,  much  too 
elaborate  to  admit  of  quotation  here.  No 
summary  could  do  it  justice ;  it  must  be  read 
in  its  entirety.  In  this  place,  however,  it  does 
not  concern  us.  It  lies  outside  the  sphere  of 
our  investigation.  We  are  not  now  inquiring 
what  esoteric  meaning  may  be  attached  by 
Mr.  Huxley  to  the  language  he  has  chosen  to 
employ ;  nor  even  are  we  inquiring  whether 
that  language  is  compatible  with  any  such 
meaning  whatever.  Our  inquiry  is  much  more 
simple.  It  is  limited  to  the  question  of  fact. 
Is  it  certain,  is  it  demonstrable,  is  it  scientifically 
true  that  the  facts  of  the  case  are  as  stated  by 
Mr.  Huxley?  On  this  very  question  of  "mate- 

I 


Scientific  Sophisms.  121 

rialism,"  for  instance,  Mr.  Huxley  asserts  that 
"  all  vital  action "  is  but  "  the  result  of  the 
molecular  forces "  of  the  physical  basis ;  and 
consequently,  to  use  his  own  words  when  ad- 
dressing his  Edinburgh  audience,  "  the  thoughts 
to  which  I  am  now  giving  utterance,  and  your 
thoughts  regarding  them,  are  but  the  expression 
of  molecular  changes  in  that  matter  of  life 
which  is  the  source  of  our  other  vital  phe- 
nomena." With  these  words  in  their  recollec- 
tion, few  persons  would  be  disposed  to  differ 
from  Mr.  Huxley  when  he  says  that  "most 
undoubtedly  the  terms  of  his  propositions  are 
distinctly  materialistic." 

But  are  they  true  ? 

"  I  know  of  no  form  of  negation  sufficiently 
explicit,  comprehensive,  and  emphatic  in  which 
to  reply  to  this  question."  The  doctrines  of 
Scientific  Materialism,  as  above  stated,  in  Pro- 
fessor Huxley's  own  words,  are  "  so  ujtterly  at 
variance  with  the  most  familiar  facts  of  chemis- 
try that  it  is  marvellous  they  should  have  so 
long  passed  unchallenged."  * 

I.  To  enter  into  detail.     It  is  in  no  sense  true 

1  "  Unchallenged,  that  is,"  adds  Dr.  Elam,  "  on  purely 
chemical  grounds.  On  other  issues,  both  relevant  and 
irrelevant,  they  have  been  often  objected  to." 


122  Protoplasm. 

that  protoplasm  "  breaks  up "  (as  Professor 
Huxley  says  it  does) T  into  carbonic  acid,  water, 
and  ammonia,  any  more  than  it  is  true  that 
iron,  when  exposed  to  the  action  of  oxygen, 
"  breaks  up  "  into  oxide  of  iron.  A  compound 
body  can  break  up  only  into  its  constituent 
parts  ;  and  these  are  not  the  constituent  parts 
of  protoplasm.  "  To  convert  protoplasm  into 
these  three  compounds  requires  an  amount  of 
oxygen  nearly  double  the  weight  of  the  original 
mass  of  protoplasm ;  speaking  approximately, 
every  100  Ibs.  of  protoplasm  would  require  170 
Ibs.  of  oxygen." 

2.  "  Under  certain  conditions,"  says  Professor 
Huxley,2  whereas,  in  point  of  fact,  under  no 
possible  "conditions"  can  carbonic  acid,  water, 
and  ammonia,  when  brought  together,  "  give  rise 
to  the  still  more  complex  body  protoplasm." 
"  Not  even  on  paper  can  any  multiple,  or  any 
combination  whatever  of  these  substances,  be 

1  "  The  matter  of  life  .  .  .  breaks  up  ...  into  car- 
bonic acid,  water,  and  ammonia,  which  certainly  possess 
no  properties  but  those  of  ordinary  matter."  (Professor 
Huxley,  in  The  Fortnightly  Review,  February,  1869.) 

*  "  But  when  they  [the  "  lifeless  compounds  "  carbonic 
acid,  water,  and  ammonia]  are  brought  together,  under 
certain  conditions,  they  give  rise  to  the  still  more  com- 
plex body  protoplasm,  and  this  protoplasm  exhibits  the 
phenomena  of  life."  (Ibid.) 


Scientific  Sophisms.  123 

made  to  represent  the  composition  of  proto- 
plasm ;  much  less  can  it  be  effected  in  practice. 
Carbonic  acid  (CO2),  water  (H2  O),  and  ammonia 
(NH3),  cannot  by  any  combination  be  brought 
to  represent  C,6  H26  N4  O10,  which  is  the  equiva- 
lent of  protein  or  protoplasm. 

3.  "  But  the  most  incredible  of  all  the  errors, 
if  it  be  not  simply  a  mystification,  is  found  in 
the  comparison  between  the  formation  of  water 
from  its  elements  and  the  origination  of  proto- 
plasm. Hydrogen  and  oxygen  doubtless  unite 
to  form  an  equivalent  weight  of  water  ;  that 
is,  an  amount  of  water  equalling  in  weight  the 
combined  weights  of  the  hydrogen  and  the 
oxygen  ;  and  Professor  Huxley  asks,  '  Is  the 
case  in  any  way  changed  when  carbonic  acid, 
water,  and  ammonia  disappear,  and  in  their 
place,  under  the  influence  of  pre-existing  proto- 
plasm, an  equivalent  weight  of  the  matter  of 
life  makes  its  appearance  ? ' 

"  The  answer  is,  Certainly  ;  the  case  is 
changed  in  every  possible  way  in  which  a 
process,  whether  chemical  or  otherwise,  can  be 
changed.  But  it  must  also  be  premised  that 
the  fact  as  stated  is  not  true,  that  when  these 
three  substances  disappear,  under  certain  con- 
ditions, an  '  equivalent  weight  of  the  matter  of 
life  makes  its  appearance.'  Every  chemist 


1 24  Protoplasm. 

knows  what  an  '  equivalent  weight '  means ; 
knows  also  that  there  can  be  no  weight  of 
protoplasm  '  equivalent/  chemically  speaking, 
to  any  amount  of  carbonic  acid,  water,  and 
ammonia,  that  may  or  can  have  disappeared. 
These  are  simple,  well-known,  and  understood 
chemical  facts,  and  need  no  discussion. 

4.  "  But  granting  for  the  moment,  and  for  the 
sake  of  argument,  that  these  bodies  disappear, 
and  that  protoplasm  appears,  it  is  manifest — 
almost  too  manifest  to  require  stating — that  there 
is  no  resemblance  whatever  in  the  two  processes 
by  which  the  results  which  Professor  Huxley 
considers  identical  are  obtained.  In  the  for- 
mation of  water,  the  whole  of  its  constituent 
parts  combine  to  form  an  equal  weight  of  the 
compound;  the  case  is  entirely  otherwise  with 
regard  to  protoplasm,  for  here  the  so-called 
elements  do  not  combine  at  all.  On  the  con- 
trary, they  are  uncombined  or  decomposed,  by 
a  process  and  by  affinities  most  assuredly  un- 
known in  our  laboratories.  The  carbonic  acid 
and  the  ammonia  are  certainly  decomposed,  and 
whilst  the  carbon  and  nitrogen  are  assimilated, 
and  add  to  the  bulk  of  the  plant,  part  of  the 
oxygen  is  eliminated  by  the  leaves,  and  part  is 
destined  to  the  performance  of  various  functions 
in  the  economy." 


Scientific  Sophisms.  125 

And  yet  it  is  in  this  complex  programme  of 
decomposition,  selection,  fixation,  and  rejection, 
that  we  are  asked  to  see  nothing  more  than  a 
process  analogous  to  the  formation  of  water 
from  its  elements ;  and  Professor  Huxley  can 
see  "  no  break."  How  wide  must  a  chasm  be 
before  it  is  visible  to  an  Evolutionist  ? 

5.  "Under  certain  conditions"  only,  and  not 
otherwise,  do  the  "  lifeless  compounds "  afore- 
said "  give  rise  to  the  still  more  complex  body 
protoplasm,  and  this  protoplasm  exhibits  the 
phenomena  of  life."  What  are  these  conditions  ? 
The  answer  is  that  "  when  carbonic  acid,  water, 
and  ammonia  disappear,  and  in  their  place,"  "  an 
equivalent  weight  of  the  matter  of  life  makes  its 
appearance,"  this  appearance  and  disappearance 
are  due  to  "  the  influence  of  pre-existing  proto- 
plasm." 

From  this  it  has  been  hastily,  but  most  un- 
warrantably, assumed  that  vitality  is  a  result  of 
some  particular  arrangement  of  the  molecular 
particles,  the  chemical  constituents  of  proto- 
plasm. In  other  words,  that  life  is  a  product 
of  protoplasm.  But  this  proposition  is  demon- 
strably  untrue. 

Protoplasm,  as  known  to  us,  is  non-existent 
except  as  produced  "  under  the  influence  of  pre- 
existing protoplasm."  Water,  ammonia,  and 


1 26  Protoplasm. 

carbonic  acid  cannot  combine  to  form  proto- 
plasm unless  a  principle  of  life  "  preside  over 
the  operation.  Unless  under  those  auspices,  the 
combination  never  takes  place.  At  present, 
whenever  assuming  its  presidential  functions, 
this  principle  of  life  appears  invariably  to  be 
embodied  in  pre-existing  protoplasm ;  but  no 
one  denies  that  there  was  a  time  when  the  fact 
was  otherwise.  Time  was — as  geology  leaves 
no  room  for  doubt — when  our  globe  consisted 
wholly  of  inorganic  matter,  and  possessed  not 
one  single  vegetable  or  animal  inhabitant.  In 
that  time  it  was  not  only  possible  for  life,  with- 
out being  previously  embodied,  to  mould  and 
vivify  inert  matter,  but  the  possible  was  the 
actual  too.  For  if  matter,  inorganic  and  inani- 
mate, had  not  been  organized  and  animated  by 
unembodied  life,  it  would  have  remained  inor- 
ganic and  inanimate  to  this  day.  Those  who 
would  escape  this  conclusion  have  only  one 
possible  alternative.  They  must  suppose  that 
death  gave  birth  to  life.  That  matter,  absolutely 
inert  and  lifeless,  did  spontaneously  exert  itself 
with  all  the  marvellous  energy  indispensable  for 
its  conversion  into  living  matter.  That  in  mak- 
ing this  exertion  it  wielded  powers  of  which 
it  was  not  possessed ;  powers  which,  under 
the  conditions  of  the  case,  it  could  not  have 


Scientific  Sophisms.  127 

acquired,  except  by  exercising  them  before  it 
had  acquired  them.  That,  absolutely  inert  as  it 
was,  it  yet  made  this  impossible  exertion  ;  and, 
lifeless  as  it  was,  it  created  life. 

To  reject  incredible  absurdities  like  these  is 
to  admit  that  originally  protoplasm  must  have 
been  produced  by  life  not  previously  embodied  ; 
but  to  admit  this  and  yet  to  suppose  that  when, 
vis  now,  embodied  life  is  observed  to  give  birth 
to  new  embodiments,  the  operative  force  be- 
longs not  to  the  life  itself,  but  to  its  protoplas- 
mic embodiment  is  "  much  the  same  as  to  sup- 
pose that  when  a  tailor,  dressed  in  clothes  of 
nis  own  making,  makes  a  second  suit  of  clothes, 
this  latter  is  the  product  not  of  the  tailor  him- 
self, hut  of  the  clothes  he  is  wearing."  1  Life 
therefore  is  not  a  product  of  protoplasm. 

d  Nor  is  it  a  property  of  protoplasm. 

By  the  property  of  an  object  is  meant,  in 
scientific  speech,  not  merely  something  belong- 
ing to  the  object,  but  also  that  it  is  a  thing 
without  which  the  object  could  not  subsist. 
Thus,  fluidity,  solidity,  and  vaporisation  are 
"  properties "  of  water,  because  matter  which 
did  not  liquefy,  congeal,  and  evaporate  at 

1  "  Old-fashioned  Ethics,  and  Common-sense  Meta- 
physics." By  William  Thomas  Thornton,  Macmillan, 
1873,  chap.  iv.  p.  167.  ("  Huxleyism.") 


128  Protoplasm. 

different  temperatures  would  not  be  water.  It 
is  the  exhibition  of  these  phenomena,  in  con- 
junction with  certain  others,  that  constitutes  the 
"aquosity "  or  wateriness  of  water.  But  in  no 
such  sense,  nor  in  any  sense  whatever,  is  life  or 
"  vitality "  essential  to  that  species  of  matter 
which  Mr.  Huxley  calls  "matter  of  life,"  or 
protoplasm.  Take  from  water  its  aquosity, 
and  water  ceases  to  be  water;  but  you  may 
take  away  vitality  from  protoplasm,  and  yet, 
according  to  Mr.  Huxley's  own  affirmation,1 
leave  protoplasm  as  much  protoplasm  as  be- 
fore. Whatever  therefore  may  be  the  relation 
which  vitality  bears  to  protoplasm,  it  is  a  re- 
lation totally  different  from  that  which  aquo- 
sity bears  to  water.  When  therefore  Professor 
Huxley  asks  :  "  What  better  philosophic  status 
has  vitality  than  aquosity  ? "  we  answer  : — Pro- 
toplasm can  do  perfectly  well  without  "vital- 
ity ;"  but  water  cannot  for  a  moment  dispense 
with  "  aquosity."  "  Protoplasm,  whether  living 
or  lifeless,  is  equally  itself;  but  unaqueous 
water  is  unmitigated  gibberish."  2  Since  then, 
as  Mr.  Huxley  affirms,  protoplasm  even  when 

1  " Living  or  dead"  says  Mr.  Huxley  :  "  If  the  pheno- 
mena exhibited  by  water  are  its  properties,  so  are  those 
presented  by  protoplasm,  living  or  dead,  its  properties." 

1  Thornton's  "  Old-fashioned  Ethics,"  ut  sup.,  p.  165. 


Scientific  Sophisms.  129 

deprived  of  its  vitality  is  still  protoplasm,  it 
is  axiomatically  evident  that  vitality  is  not  in- 
dispensable to  protoplasm,  and  is  therefore  not 
a  "property"  of  protoplasm. 

7.  But  this  question  of  Mr.  Huxley's  is  fur- 
ther noticeable  on  account  of  the  connection  in 
which  it  is  found ;  a  connection  highly  signifi- 
cant in  relation  to  its  author's  disclaimer  of 
"materialism."  In  varying  phrase,  but  always 
to  the  same  effect,  in  three  short  consecutive 
sentences  he  thrice  reiterates  the  question  : — 

"  What  justification  is  there  then  for  the  assumption  of 
the  existence  in  the  living  matter  of  a  something  which 
has  no  representative  or  correlative  in  the  not-living  mat- 
ter that  gave  rise  to  it  ?  What  better  philosophic  status 
has  vitality  than  aquosity  ?  And  why  should  vitality 
hope  for  a  better  fate  than  the  other  itys  which  have  dis- 
appeared since  Martinus  Scriblerus  accounted  for  the 
operation  of  the  meat-jack  by  its  inherent  meat-roasting 
quality,  and  scorned  the  materialism  of  those  who  ex- 
plained the  turning  of  the  spit  by  a  certain  mechanism 
worked  by  the  draught  of  the  chimney  ?  " 1 

"  This,"  replies  Dr.  Elam,  "  is  very  amusing 
— no  one  can  be  more  so  than  Professor  Huxley  ; 
— a  little  perception  of  facts  and  analogies 
would  make  it  perfect.  The  answer  is  obvious, 
if  answer  is  required.  All  these  are  machines 

1  Fortnightly  Review,  February,  1869,  p.  140. 


1 30  Protoplasm. 

which  man  has  made,  and  can  again  make  by 
the  use  of  well-known  forces  and  material 
which  he  can  combine  at  will ;  it  is  not  there- 
fore necessary  to  hypothecate  any  other  force 
or  principle.  When  man  can  make  any,  even 
the  simplest  organism,  out  of  inorganic  matter, 
then  shall  we  be  compelled  to  acknowledge 
that  chemical  and  other  forces  are  sufficient, 
and  that  the  hypothesis  of  a  vital  principle 
has  had  its  day  and  may  cease  to  be.  To 
Professor  Huxley's  illustration  I  will  respond 
seriously  when  he  has  demonstrated  to  me 
that  meat-jacks  have  been  developed  from 
the  beginning  of  time  only  and  exclusively 
under  the  immediate  contact  and  influence  of 
pre-existing  meat-jacks.  Until  then  the  analogy 
is  scarcely  close  enough  to  need  refutation  or 
discussion."1 

8.  Mr.  Huxley,  as  above  cited,  refuses  to 
recognise  the  distinction  between  dead  proto- 
plasm and  that  which  lives.  Other  authorities 
however,  and  especially  the  Germans  who  have 
led  the  way  in  this  investigation,  say  expressly 
that  whether  the  same  elements  are  to  be 
referred  to  the  protoplasmic  cells  equally  after 
death  as  before  it  is  a  matter  entirely  unknown. 
While  this  is  so  it  is  evident  that  Mr.  Huxley's 

1  Contemporary  Review,  September,  1876,  p.  558  etseq. 


Scientific  Sophisms.  131 

chemical  analysis  of  dead  protoplasm  cannot 
be  regarded  as  decisive  for  that  which  is  not 
dead.  And  yet,  throughout  his  whole  argument, 
he  builds  on  this  same  chemical  analysis  as 
if  it  were  decisive.  Thus  he  speaks  of  mutton 
as  "once  the  living  protoplasm,"  now  the 
"  same  matter  altered  by  death  "  and  cookery, 
but  yet  as  not  being  by  these  alterations  ren- 
dered "incompetent  to  resume  its  old  functions 
as  matter  of  life." 1  He  speaks  of  its  being 
subjected  to  "  subtle  influences "  which  "  will 
convert  the  dead  protoplasm  into  the  living 
protoplasm  " — which  will  "  raise  the  complex 
substance  of  dead  protoplasm  to  the  higher 
power,  as  one  may  say,  of  living  protoplasm."  3 
In  all  this,  as  throughout,  when  he  speaks  of 
dead  matter  of  life  and  living  matter  of  life, 
not  only  is  there  no  hint  of  any  difference  in 
chemical  constitution,  or  in  "  arrangement  of 
molecules,"  between  the  dead  and  the  living, 
but  when,  in  anticipation  of  such  difference, 
he  alludes  to  it  at  all,  it  is  only  to  pronounce 
it  "frivolous."8 

So   be   it.     Let  the    identity  of  protoplasm, 
"living  or  dead,"  as  assumed  by  Mr.  Huxley, 

1  Fortnightly  Review,  February,  1869,  P-  I37« 

*  Ibid.,  p.  138. 

•  Ibid.,  p.  135- 


132  Protoplasm. 

be — at  least  for  the  moment,  and  for  the 
sake  of  the  argument — conceded.  What  then  ? 
The  properties  of  protoplasm,  as  we  have  seen, 
are  altogether  dependent  upon  the  arrangement 
of  its  constituent  atoms.  But  protoplasm  in 
one  of  these  conditions  (i.e.,  dead)  manifests 
passive  properties  only ;  while,  in  the  opposite 
condition, — without  any  change,  i.e.,  any  known 
or  knowable  change,  in  its  chemical  properties 
or  molecular  arrangement, — we  find  it  exer- 
cising a  vast  variety  of  active  properties,  as- 
similation, contraction,  reproduction ;  not  to 
mention  thought,  feeling,  and  will.  Here  then 
we  have  an  effect,  or  rather  a  whole  train  of 
effects  most  marvellous, — witJwiit  a  cause,  a 
conclusion  that  the  most  enthusiastic  Evolu- 
tionist would  hesitate  to  pronounce  in  "  general 
harmony  with .  scientific  thought." *  From  this 
impossible,  and  yet  inevitable  conclusion  there 
is  no  possible  escape  except  (i)  by  hypo- 
thecating a  change,  mechanical  or  chemical,  of 
which,  by  Professor  Huxley's  own  confession, 
we  can  have  no  possible  knowledge,  *  and  on 
which  therefore  "  we  have  no  right  to  speculate  ;" 

1  "  Belfast,  Address,"  ut  sup.,  p.  58  :  "  The  strength  of 
the  doctrine  of  evolution  consists  .  .  .  in  its  general 
harmony  with  scientific  thought," 

*  Fortnightly  Review. 


Scientific  Sophisms.  J33 

or  (2)  by  confessing  that  the  "  subtle  influences  " 
invoked  by  Mr.  Huxley  to  eke  out  the  defi- 
ciencies of  protoplasmic  chemistry  are  nothing 
else  than — under  another  name — that  very 
same  vital  force  or  vital  principle  in  which  it 
is  now  so  unfashionable  and  so  unscientific 
to  believe.1 

9.  In  truth,  however,  the  fulcrum  on  which 
Mr.  Huxley's  protoplasmic  materialism  rests 
is  a  single  inference  from  a  chemical  analogy. 
But  analogy,  which  is  never  identity,  though 
often  mistaken  for  it,  is  apt  to  betray.  The 
difference  which  it  covers  may  be  essential, 
while  the  likeness  it  reveals  may  be  inessential 
— as  far  as  the  conclusion  is  concerned.  The 
analogy  to  which  Mr.  Huxley  trusts  has  two 
references  :  one  to  chemical  composition,  and 
one  to  a  certain  stimulus  that  determines  it. 
In  both  of  these  the  analogy  fails  :  in  both  it 
can  only  seem  to  succeed  by  discounting  the 
elements  of  difference  that  still  subsist. 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  protoplasm  is  a 
chemical  substance.  It  cannot  be  denied  that 
protoplasm  is  a  physical  substance.  Both 
physically  and  chemically,  water  (as  a  compound 
of  hydrogen,  and  oxygen)  and  protoplasm  (as 

1  Dr.  Elam's  "Automatism  and  Evolution" 
560. 


1 34  Protoplasm. 

a  compound  of  carbon,  hydrogen,  oxygen, 
and  nitrogen)  are  clearly  analogous.  -So  far 
as  it  is  on  chemical  and  physical  structure 
that  the  possession  of  distinctive  properties 
in  any  case  depends,  both  bodies  may  be  said 
to  be  on  a  par.  So  far  the  analogy  must  be 
allowed  to  hold  ;  so  far,  but  no  farther.  "  One 
step  farther,  and  we  see  not  only  that 
protoplasm  has,  like  water,  a  chemical  and 
physical  structure ;  but  that,  unlike  water,  it 
has  also  an  organised  or  organic  structure. 
Now  this,  on  the  part  of  protoplasm,  is  a 
possession  in  excess  ;  and  with  relation  to  that 
excess  there  can  be  no  grounds  for  analogy." 
When  therefore  Mr.  Huxley  says,  "  If  the 
phenomena  exhibited  by  water  are  its  properties, 
so  are  those  presented  by  protoplasm,  living 
or  dead,  its  properties,"  the  answer  is,  "  Living 
or  dead  ?  "  organic  or  inorganic  ?  That  alter- 
native is  simply  slipped  in  and  passed  ;  but  it 
is  in  that  alternative  that  the  whole  matter 
lies.  Chemically,  dead  protoplasm  is  to  Mr. 
Huxley  quite  as  good  as  living  protoplasm. 
It  is  this  dead  protoplasm  which  he  finds  so 
delectable  in  the  shape  of  bread,  lobster, 
mutton.  But  then  it  is  to  be  remembered  that 
it  is  only  these — as  being  inorganic — that  can 
be  placed  on  the  same  level  as  water ;  while 


Scientific  Sophisms.  135 

living  protoplasm  is  not  only  unlike  water,  but 
it  is  unlike  dead  protoplasm.  Living  and  dead 
protoplasm  are  identical  only  as  far  as  chemistry 
is  concerned  (if  indeed  so  far  as  that)  ;  it  is 
therefore  evident,  consequently,  that  difference 
between  the  two  cannot  depend  on  that  in 
which  they  are  identical ;  i.e.,  cannot  depend 
on  the  chemistry. 

Life,  then,  is  something  else  than  the  result 
of  chemical  or  physical  structure,  and  it  is  in 
another  sphere  than  those  of  physics  or  che- 
mistry that  its  explanation  must  be  found.  It 
is  thus  that,  lifted  high  enough,  the  light  of  the 
analogy  between  water  and  protoplasm  is  seen 
to  go  out.  Water,  like  its  constituent  elements, 
has  only  chemical  and  physical  qualities ; 
like  them,  it  is  still  inorganic.  But  not  so  in 
protoplasm,  where,  together  with  retention  of 
the  chemical  and  physical  likeness,  there  is  the 
addition  of  the  unlikeness  of  life,  of  organization, 
and  of  ideas.  But  this  addition  is  a  world  in 
itself:  a  new  and  higher  world,  the  world  of 
a  self-realizing  thought,  the  world  of  an  entelechy. 
The  relation  of  the  organic  to  the  inorganic — 
of  protoplasm  dead  to  protoplasm  alive — is 
not  an  analogy,  but  an  antithesis  :  The  anti- 
thesis of  antitheses.  In  it,  in  fact,  we  are  in 
presence  of  the  one  impassable  gulf — "that 


136  Protoplasm. 

gulf  which  Mr.  Huxley's  protoplasm  is  as 
powerless  to  efface  as  any  other  material  ex- 
pedient that  has  ever  been  suggested  since  the 
eyes  of  men  first  looked  into  it — the  mighty 
gulf  between  death  and  life." * 

IO.  "  Protoplasm  is  the  clay  of  the  potter, 
which,  bake  it  and  paint  it  as  he  will,  remains  clay, 
separated  by  artifice,  and  not  by  nature,  from 
the  commonest  brick  or  sun-dried  clod."  On 
this  it  has  been  justly  observed  that  "  Mr.  Huxley 
puts  emphatically  his  whole  soul  into  this  sen- 
tence, and  evidently  believes  it  to  be,  if  we  may 
use  the  word,  a  clincher."  But  the  answer  is 
easy.  The  assertion  that  all  bricks,  being  made 
of  clay,  are  the  same  thing,  is  one  that  involves 
its  own  limitation.  Yes,  undoubtedly,  we  answer, 
if  they  are  made  of  the  same  clay.  The  bricks 
are  identical  if  the  clay  is  identical ;  but,  on 
the  other  hand,  by  as  much  as  the  clay  differs 
will  the  bricks  differ.  And,  similarly,  all 
organisms  can  be  identified  only  if  their  com- 
posing protoplasm  can  be  identified.  But  when, 
from  indefinite  generalizations,  we  descend  to 
definite  particulars,  this  identification  is  found 
to  be  impossible. 

Mr.  Huxley's  entire  theory  may  be  summed 
1  Dr.  Stirling  :  "As  Regards  Protoplasm,"  p.  41. 

K 


Scientific  Sophisms.  137 

up  in  two  propositions: — First,  "That  all  animal 
and  vegetable  organisms  are  essentially  alike 
in  power,  in  form,  and  in  substance ; "  Second, 
"That  all  vital  and  even  intellectual  functions 
are  the  properties  of  the  molecular  disposition 
and  changes  of  the  material  basis  (protoplasm) 
of  which  the  various  animals  and  vegetables 
consist."  In  both  propositions  the  agent  of 
proof  is  this  same  alleged  material  basis  of  life, 
or  protoplasm.  To  establish  the  first,  Mr.  Hux- 
ley endeavours  to  identify  all  organisms  (animal 
and  vegetable)  in  protoplasm.  To  establish 
the  second,  by  means  of  inference  from  a  simple 
chemical  analogy  he  assigns  vitality,  and  even 
intellect,  to  the  molecular  constituents  of  the 
protoplasm,  in  connection  with  which  they  are 
exhibited. 

The  second  of  these  propositions  has  already 
been  examined  and  refuted.  It  has  been  shown1 
that  life  is  not  a  property  of  protoplasm ;  that 
it  is  not  a  product  of  protoplasm  }  and  that 
vitality  and  protoplasm  are  not  inseparable. 
Be  protoplasm  what  it  may,  vital  and  intel- 
lectual functions  are  not  the  products  of  its 
molecular  constitution. 

It  is  the  first  of  these  two  propositions  which 
now  remains  to  be  examined.  Is  protoplasm, 
1  In  paragraphs  5,  6,  8,  and  9,  pp.  120-129. 


138  Protoplasm. 

as  alleged  by  Mr.  Huxley,  an  actual  life-matter, 
everywhere  identical  in  itself,  and  one  which 
consequently  everywhere  involves  the  identity 
of  all  the  various  organs  and  organisms  which 
it  is  assumed  to  compose  ?  The  bricks,  says 
Mr.  Huxley,  are  the  same  because  the  clay  is 
the  same.  But  is  the  clay  the  same  ?  Can  it 
be  identified,  as  Mr.  Huxley  alleges,  by  a  three- 
fold unity  of  faculty,  of  form,  of  substance  ? 

To  begin  then  with  this  simplest  question, 
that  of  substance.  Are  all  samples  of  proto- 
plasm identical,  first,  in  their  chemical  composi- 
tion, and,  second,  under  the  action  of  the  various 
re-agents  ?  This  cannot  be  affirmed.  And  it  is 
against  the  affirmation  of  this  that  "we  point 
to  the  fact  of  much  chemical  difference  obtaining 
among  the  tissues,  not  only  in  the  proportions 
of  their  fundamental  elements,  but  also  in  the 
addition  (and  proportion  as  well)  of  such  others 
as  chlorine,  sulphur,  phosphorus,  potass,  soda, 
lime,  magnesia,  iron,  etc.  Vast  differences 
vitally  must  be  legitimately  assumed  for  tissues 
that  are  so  different  chemically."  x 

As  to  the  alleged  unities  of  form  and  power 
in  protoplasm,  according  to  Strieker,2  "  Proto- 

1  Dr.  Stirling  :  "  As  Regards  Protoplasm,"  p.  29. 
1  Whom  Professor  Huxley  calls,  "  My  valued  friend  Pro- 
fessor Strieker."    ("  Yeast"  in  "  Critiques  and  Addresses," 


Scientific  Sophisms.  139 

plasm   varies   almost   infinitely  in    consistence, 
in  shape,  in  structure,  and  in  function. 

"  In  consistence,  it  is  sometimes  so  fluid  as  to  be  capa- 
ble of  forming  in  drops ;  sometimes  semi-fluid  and 
gelatinous ;  sometimes  of  considerable  resistance.  __  In 
shape — for  to  Strieker  the  cells  are  now  protoplasm — we 
have  club-shaped  protoplasm,  globe-shaped  protoplasm, 
cup-shaped  protoplasm,  bottle-shaped  protoplasm,  spindle- 
shaped  protoplasm,  branched,  threaded,  ciliated  proto- 
plasm, circle-headed  protoplasm,  flat,  conical,  cylindrical, 
longitudinal,  prismatic,  polyhedral,  and  palisade-like 
protoplasm.  In  structure,  again,  it  is  sometimes  uniform 
and  sometimes  reticulated  into  interspaces  that  contain 
fluid. 

"  In  function,  lastly,  some  protoplasm  is  vagrant,  and  of 
unknown  use.  Some  again  produces  pepsine,  and  some 
fat.  Some  at  least  contain  pigment.  Then  there  is 
nerve-protoplasm,  brain-protoplasm,  bone-protoplasm, 
muscle-protoplasm,  and  protoplasm  of  all  the  other  tissues, 
no  one  of  which  but  produces  its  own  kind,  and  is  uninter- 
changeable  with  the  rest.  Lastly,  on  this  head,  we  have 
to  point  to  the  overwhelming  fact  that  there  is  the  in- 
finitely different  protoplasm  of  the  various  infinitely  dif- 
ferent plants  and  animals,  in  each  of  which  its  own  proto- 
plasm, as  in  the  case  of  the  various  tissues,  but  produces 
its  own  kind,  and  is  uninterchangeable  with  that  of  the 
rest."  > 

The  evidence  in  refutation  of  Mr.  Huxley's 
first  proposition  is  thus  seen  to  be  overwhelm- 

p.  89.)     Strieker :  with  whom,  says  Dr.  Stirling,  "  for  the 
production  of  his  '  Handbuch,'  there  is  associated  every 
great  histological  name  in  Germany."    (Pref.,  p.  3.) 
1  M  As  Regards  Protoplasm,"  pp.  30,  31. 


140  Protoplasm. 

ing.  In  view  of  the  nature  of  microscopic 
science ;  in  view  of  the  results  hitherto  obtained 
as  regards  nucleus,  membrane,  and  entire  cell , 
even  in-  view  of  the  supporters  of  protoplasm 
itself;  Mr.  Huxley's  assertion  of  a  physical 
matter  of  life  is  untenable.1  But  even  if  that 
"  matter  of  life  "  were  granted,  the  reasons  in- 
numerable, and  even  irrefragable,  would  still 
remain  to  compel  us — as  now  they  do  actually 
compel  us — to  acknowledge  in  it,  not  indeed  the 
"  identity  "  now  claimed,  but  rather  "  an  infinite 
diversity "  in  power,  in  form,  and  in  substance. 
No  wonder  that  the  bricks  are  not  the  same : 
with  this  "infinite  diversity"  in  the  clay. 

II.  Nor  is  this  fundamental  diversity  in  any 
way  altered  or  diminished  by  the.  convertibility 
of  which  Mr.  Huxley  speaks.  On  the  contrary, 
that  convertibility,  as  alleged  by  Mr.  Huxley, 

1  The  position  here  maintained — in.  opposition  to 
Mr.  Huxley — is  supported  by  an  important  dictum  of 
Professor  Tyndall : — "  When  the  contents  of  a  cell  are  de- 
scribed as  perfectly  homogeneous,  as  absolutely  structure- 
less, because  the  microscope  fails  to  distinguish  any 
structure,  then  I  think  the  microscope  begins  to  play  a 
mischievous  part.  A  little  consideration  will  make  it 
plain  to  all  of  you  that  the  microscope  can  have  no  voice 
in  the  real  question  of  germ  structure." — Fragments  of 
Science:  First  Edition,  p.  155. 


Scientific  Sophisms. 

establishes,  the  antecedent  diversity.  If  the 
diversity  were  non-existent,  there  would  be  no 
room  for  the  alleged  process  of  convertibility. 
And  yet,  as  used  by  him,  this  same  convertibility 
is  employed  to  stamp  protoplasm  (and  with  it 
life  and  intellect)  into  an  indifferent  identity. 
In  order  that  there  may  be  "no  break"  between 
the  lowest  functions  and  the  highest — between 
the  functions  of  the  fungus  and  the  functions 
of  man — he  has  "endeavoured  to  prove,"  he 
tells  us,  that  the  protoplasm  of  the  lowest 
organisms  is  "essentially  identical  with,  and 
most  readily  converted  into  that  of  any  animal."  l 
And  on  this  alleged  reciprocal  convertibility  of 
protoplasm  he  founds  an  inference  of  identity, 
as  well  as  of  the  further  conclusion  that  the 
functions  of  the  highest,  not  less  than  of  the 
lowest  animals,  are  but  the  molecular  manifesta- 
tions of  the  protoplasm  which  is  common  to  all. 
"  Is  this  alleged  reciprocal  convertibility  true, 
then  ?  Is  it  true  that  every  organism  can  digest 
every  other  organism,  and  that  thus  a  relation 
of  identity  is  established  between  that  which 
digests  and  whatever  is  digested  ? 

"  These  questions  place  Mr.  Huxley's  general  enterprise, 
perhaps,  in  the  most  glaring  light  yet ;  for  it  is  very  evident 

1  "Lay  Sermons,"  p.  138. 


142  Protoplasm. 

that  there  is  an  end  of  the  argument  if  all  foods  and  all 
feeders  are  essentially  identical  both  with  themselves  and 
with  each  other.  The  facts  of  the  case,  however,  I  be- 
lieve to  be  too  well  known  to  require  a  single  word  here 
on  my  part.  It  is  not  long  since  Mr.  Huxley  himself 
pointed  out  the  great  difference  between  the  foods  of 
plants  and  the  foods  of  animals  ;  and  the  reader  may  be 
safely  left  to  think  for  himself  of  ruminantia  and  car- 
niTJora,  of  soft  bills  and  hard  bills,  of  molluscs  and  men. 
Mr.  Huxley  talks  feelingly  of  the  possibility  of  himself 
feeding  the  lobster  quite  as  much  as  of  the  lobster  feeding 
him  ;  but  such  pathos  is  not  always  applicable  :  it  is  not 
likely  that  a  sponge  would  be  to  the  stomach  of  Mr. 
Huxley  any  more  than  Mr.  Huxley  would  be  to  the 
stomach  of  a  sponge. 

"  But  a  more  important  point  is  this,  that  the 
functions  themselves  remain  quite  apart  from 
the  alleged  convertibility.  We  can  neither 
acquire  the  functions  of  what  we  eat,  nor  impart 
our  functions  to  what  eats  us.  We  shall  not 
come  to  fly  by  feeding  on  vultures,  nor  they 
to  speak  by  feeding  on  us.  No  possible  manure 
of  human  brains  will  enable  a  corn-field  to 
reason.  But  if  functions  are  inconvertible,  the 
convertibility  of  protoplasm  is  idle.  In  this 
inconvertibility,  indeed,  functions  will  be  seen 
to  be  independent  of  mere  chemical  composition. 
And  that  is  the  truth :  for  function  there  is 
more  required  than  either  chemistiy  or  physics."1 

1  Dr.  Stirling  :  "  As  Regards  Protoplasm,"  p.  50. 


Scientific  Sophisms.  143 

12.  As  of  the  bricks,  then,  so  of  the  clay :  it 
is  not  identical,  and  it  is  not  convertible.  But 
Evolution  dies  hard,  and  Mr.  Huxley  in  the 
last  resort  falls  back  upon  protoplasm  "variously 
modified"  But  where  are  we  to  begin,  not  to 
have  modified  protoplasm?  Mr.  Huxley  begins 
with  the  sting  of  the  nettle,  but  even  there  the 
protoplasm  is  already  modified  ;  and  we  have 
the  authority  of  Rindfleisch  for  asserting  that 
"in  every  different  tissue  we  must  look  for 
a  different  initial  term  of  the  productive 
series." 

Besides :  there  are  in  protoplasm  generic  or 
specific  differences ;  differences  not  merely  of 
degree,  but  of  kind.  Some  of  these  are  indicated 
by  Mr.  Huxley  himself,  when  he  tells  us  that 
plants  alone  are  capable  of  assimilating  inorganic 
matter ;  while  animals  assimilate  organic  matter 
only.  Others  must  be  admitted  "  for  the  over- 
whelming reason  that  an  infinitude  of  various 

« 

kinds  exist  in  it,  each  of  which  is  self-productive 
and  uninterchangeable  with  the  rest."  Brain- 
protoplasm  is  not  bone-protoplasm,  nor  the 
protoplasm  of  the  fungus  the  protoplasm  of 
man.  "  If  the  cornea  of  the  eye  and  the  enamel 
of  the  teeth  are  alike  but  modified  protoplasm, 
we  must  be  pardoned  for  thinking  more  of  the 
adjective  than  of  the  substantive.  Our  wonder 


144  Protoplasm. 

is  how,  for  one  idea,  protoplasm  could  become 
one  thing  here,  and,  for  another  idea,  another 
so  different  thing  there.  We  are  more  curious 
abnut  the  modification  than  the  protoplasm. 
In  the  difference,  rather  than  in  the  identity, 
it  is  indeed  that  the  wonder  lies. 

"  Here  are  several  thousand  pieces  of  proto- 
plasm ;  analysis  can  detect  no  difference  in 
them.  They  are  to  us,  let  us  say,  as  they  are 
to  Mr.  Huxley,  identical  in  power,  in  form,  and 
in  substance ;  and  yet  on  all  these  several  thou- 
sand little  bits  of  apparently  indistinguishable 
matter  an  element  of  difference  so  pervading 
and  so  persistent  has  been  impressed,  that  of 
them  all,  not  one  is  interchangeable  with 
another!  Each  seed  feeds  its  own  kind.  The 
protoplasm  of  the  gnat  will  no  more  grow  into 
the  fly  than  it  will  grow  into  an  elephant. 
Protoplasm  is  protoplasm ;  yes,  but  man's 
protoplasm  is  man's  protoplasm,  and  the  mush- 
room's the  mushroom's." 1  The  difference  is 
one  of  kind,  not  of  degree ;  and  that  difference 
the  word  "  modification,"  though  it  may  indeed 
sometimes  conceal,  will  never  be  able  to 
efface. 

13.  In  closing  this  brief  review  of  Mr.  Huxley's 
1  "As  Regards  Protoplasm,"  p.  58. 


Scientific  Sophisms.  145 

doctrine,  it  will  be  found  not  unimportant  to 
notice  some  particulars  which  characterise  Mr. 
Huxley's  own  position  in  relation  to  it.  Fore- 
most among  these  is  the  nomenclature  which 
Mr.  Huxley  has  chosen  to  employ. 

The  protoplasmic  pellicle,  "the  formative 
protoplasmic  layer "  in  vegetable  cells,  was  re- 
garded by  Von  Mohl  as  a  structure  of  special 
importance,  distinct  from  the  cell-contents,  and 
was  named  by  him,  in  1844,  "the  primordial 
utricle."  This  primordial  utricle  has  since  been 
called  protoplasm  by  Professor  Huxley,  although 
some  years  previously  he  had  restricted  the  term 
protoplasm  to  the  matter  within  the  primordial 
utricle,  which  matter  he  at  that  time  regarded 
as  nothing  more  than  an  "  accidental  anatomical 
modification "  of  the  endoplast,  and  of  little 
importance.1  "  The  nucleus,  and~  with  it  the 
protoplasm,  Mr.  Huxley  thought,  exerted  no 
peculiar  office,  and  possessed  no  metabolic  power. 
But  Mr.  Huxley  has  changed  his  views  without 
one  word  of  explanation  concerning  the  facts 
which  led  him  to  modify  them,  or  even  an  ac- 
knowledgment that  he  had  changed  them.  Mr. 
Huxley  now  considers  '  protoplasm  '  of  the  first 
importance.  .  .  .  His  '  endoplast '  and  'peri- 

1  "  The  Cell  Theory  :"  Medical  Chirurgical  Review, 
October,  1853. 


146  Protoplasm* 

plastic  substance '.  of   1853  together  constitute 
his  '  protoplasm  '  of  1 869."  * 

14.  "In  order  to  convince  people  that  the 
actions  of  living  beings  are  not  due  to  any 
mysterious  vitality  or  vital  force  or  power,  but 
are  in  fact  physical  and  chemical  in  their  nature, 
Professor  Huxley  gives  to  matter  which  is  alive, 
to  matter  which  is  dead,  and  to  matter  which  is 
completely  changed  by  tJie  process  of  roasting  or 
boiling,  the  very  same  name.  'Mutton  con- 
tained protoplasm  of  the  same  nature  as  was 
found  in  every  living  thing.'  '  As  he  spoke,  he 
was  wasting  his  stock  of  protoplasm,  but  he 
had  the  power  of  making  it  up  again  by  draw- 
ing upon  the  protoplasm  of  some  other  animal — 
say  a  sheep.  (Laughter.)'  The  matter  of  sheep 
and  mutton  and  man  and  lobster  and  egg  is 
the  same,  and,  according  to  Huxley,  one  may 
be  transubstantiated  into  the  other.  But  how  ? 
By  '  subtle  influences,'  and  '  under  sundry  cir- 
cumstances,' answers  this  authority.  And  all 
these  things  alive,  or  dead,  or  dead  and  roasted, 
he  tells  us  are  made  of  protoplasm,  and  he 
affirms  this  protoplasm  is  the  pJiysical  basis  of 

1  "Protoplasm;  or  Matter  and  Life."  By  Lionel  S. 
Beale,  M.B.,F.R.S.  Third  Edition.  London  :  Churchill, 
1874,  pp.  90,  91. 


Scientific  Sophisms.      '         147 

life,  or  the  basis  of  physical  life.1  But  is  it  not 
hard  that  the  discoverer  of  '  subtle  influences ' 
should  laugh  at  the  fiction  of  '  vitality '  /  By 
calling  thfngs  which  differ  from  one  another  in 
many  qualities  by  the  same  name,  Huxley  seems 
to  think  he  can  annihilate  distinctions,  enforce 
identity,  and  sweep  away  the  difficulties  which 
have  impeded  the  progress  of  previous  philo- 
sophers in  their  search  after  unity.  Plants  and 
worms  and  men  are  all  protoplasm,  and  proto- 
plasm is  albuminous  matter,  and  albuminous 
matter  consists  of  four  elements,  and  these 
four  elements  possess  certain  properties,  by 
which  properties  all  differences  between  plants 
and  worms  and  men  are  to  be  accounted  for. 
Although  Huxley  would  probably  admit  that  a 
worm  was  not  a  man,  he  would  tell  us  that  by 
'  subtle  influences '  and  '  under  sundry  circum- 
stances,' the  one  thing  might  be  easily  con- 
verted into  the  other,  and  not  by  such  non- 
sensical fictions  as  '  vitality/  which  can  neither 
be  weighed,  measured,  nor  conceived.  But,  in 

1  [Note  by  Dr.  Beale  :]  The  heading  of  his  lecture  as 
published  in  The  Scotsman  for  November  9, 1868,  is  "  The 
Bases  of  Physical  Life,"  while  his  communication  in  The 
Fortnightly,  February  i,  1 869,  referred  to  by  him  as  this 
same  lecture,  is  entitled  "  The  Physical  Basis  of  Life." 
The  iron  basis  of  the  candle,  and  the  basis  of  the  iron 
candle,  are  expressions  evidently  interchangeable. 


1 48  Protoplasm. 

science,  it  is  not  fair  to  indulge  in  word-tricks 
and  equivocal  illustrations,  nor  is  it  justifiable 
to  make  use  of  misleading  similes."1 

15.  "I  think  Professor  Huxley  is  the  first 
observer  who  has  spoken  of  the  cell  in  its 
entirety  as  a  mass  of  protoplasm,  and  the  only 
one  who  has  ever  asserted  that  any  tissue  in 
nature  is  composed  throughout  of  matter  which 
can  properly  be  regarded  as  one  in  kind.  This 
view  is  quite  irreconcilable  with  many  facts, 
some  of  which  have  been  alluded  to  by  Mr. 
Huxley  himself.  I  doubt  if  in  the  whole  range 
of  modern  science  it  would  be  possible  to  find 
an  assertion  more  at  variance  with  facts  familiar 
to  physiologists  than  the  statement  that  '  beast 
and  fowl,  reptile  and  fish,  mollusc,  worm,  and 
polype,'  are  composed  of  '  masses  of  protoplasm 
with  a  nucleus,'  unless  it  be  that  still  more 
extravagant  assertion  that  what  is  ordinarily 
termed  a  cell  or  elementary  part  is  a  mass  of 
protoplasm  ;  for  can  anything  be  more  unlike  the 
semi-fluid,  active,  moving  matter  of  amoeba  pro- 
toplasm, than  the  hard,  dry,  passive,  external 
part  of  a  cuticular  cell  or  of  an  elementary 
part  of  bone  ?"  8 

1  Dr.  Beale's  "  Protoplasm,"  ut  sup.,  pp.  95,  96. 
•  Ibid.,  pp.  97, 98. 


Scientific  Sophisms.  149 

"  Huxley  makes  no  difference  between  dead  and  living 
and  roasted  matter,  and  he  confuses  together  the  living 
thing,  the  stuff  upon  which  it  feeds,  and  the  things  formed 
by  it,  or  which  result  from  its  death.  A  muscle  is  pro- 
toplasm ;  nerve  is  protoplasm  ;  a  limb  is  protoplasm ; 
the  whole  body  is  protoplasm,  and  of  course  bone,  hair, 
shell,  etc.,  are  as  much  'the  physical  basis  of  life'  as 
albuminous  matter  and  roast  mutton.  But  surely  it  would 
be  less  incorrect  to  speak  of  such  'protoplasms'  as  the 
physical  basis  of  death  or  the  physical  basis  of  roast  than 
to  call  dead  and  roasted  matter  the  physical  basis  of  life. 
.  .  .  Huxley  says  lobster-protoplasm  may  be  converted 
into  human  protoplasm,  and  the  latter  again  turned  into 
living  lobster.  But  the  statement  is  incorrect,  because 
in  the  process  of  assimilation  what  was  once  '  protoplasm ' 
is  entirely  disintegrated,  and  is  not  converted  into  the 
new  tissue  in  the  form  of  protoplasm  at  all ;  and  I  must 
remark  that  sheep  cannot  be  transubstantiated  into  man, 
even  by  '  subtle  influences/  nor  can  dead  protoplasm  be 
converted  into  living  protoplasm,  or  a  dead  sheep  into  a 
living  man.  And  what  is  gained  by  calling  the  matter 
of  dead  roast  mutton  and  that  of  a  living  growing  sheep 
by  the  same  name  ?  If  the  last  is  the  physical  basis  of 
life,  one  does  not  see  how  the  first  can  be  so  too,  unless 
roast  mutton  and  living  sheep  are  identical." l 

Plain-speaking,  this  of  Dr.  Beale's ;  but  its 
irresistible  force  is  found  in  the  well-earned 
celebrity  of  its  author — "  the  foremost  micro- 
scopist  of  the  English-speaking  world."  * 

1  Dr.  Beale's  "  Protoplasm,"  ut  sup,,  pp.  100,  101. 

8  "  Beale's  protoplasmic  theory  now  takes  the  place  of 
the  cell  theory.  General  opinion  is  now  in  accord,  as 
respects  the  facts,  with  Dr.  Beale's  statements  on  the 


1 50  Protoplasm. 

16.  "It   is  significant  that  Huxley  himself, 
some  sixteen  years  ago,  drew  a  distinction  be- 
tween living  and  non-living  matter,  which    he 
now,  without  any  explanation,  utterly  ignores. 
He  remarked  that  the  stone,  the  gas,  the  crystal, 
had  an  inertia,  and  tended  to  remain  as  they 
were  unless  some   external    influence    affected 
them  ;  but  that  living  things  were  characterised 
by  the  very  opposite  tendencies.      He  referred 
also   to    'the   faculty   of   pursuing    their    own 
course '  and  the  'inherent  law  of  change  in  living 
beings.'      In  1853,  the  same  authority  actually 
found  fault  with  those  who  attempted  to  reduce 
life  to  '  mere  attractions   and   repulsions,'  and 
'considered    physiology   simply  as  a  complex 
branch  of  mere   physics.'      He   also  remarked 
that  'vitality  is  a  property  inherent  in  certain 
kinds  of  matter.'  "  *•     Now,  however,  as  we  have 
seen,  there  is  but  one  kind  of  matter,  "  variously 
modified  ; "  and  "  vitality  "  has  no  better  status 
than  "  aquosity !  " 

17.  Nor  is  it  less  "significant"  to  note  Mr. 
Huxley's  various,  though  incidental  admissions, 
and  to  contrast  them  with  the  dogmatism  of  his 

nucleus  in  1860."     (Dr.  John  Drysdale  :  "Protoplasmic 
Theory  of  Life."     London,  1874.) 
1  Dr.  Beale  :  «/  sup.,  p.  101. 


Scientific  Sophisms.  151 

mere  assertions.  We  look  for  certainty  and  find 
only  probability :  eg., — "  It  is  more  than  probable 
that  when  the  vegetable  world  is  thoroughly 
explored  we  shall  find  all  plants  in  possession 
of  the  same  powers."  The  premises  then  have 
still  to  be  collected  ;  and  yet  the  conclusion  has 
been  confidently  proclaimed.  Compare  this 
"  more  than  probable  "  vaticination  concerning 
vegetables  with  the  positive  assertion  "that 
the  powers  of  ALL  the  different  forms  of  living 
things  were  substantially  one,  that  their  forms 
were  substantially  one,  and,  finally,  that  their 
composition  was  also  substantially  one."  J  Again, 
he  says,  "  So  far  as  the  conditions  of  the  mani- 
festations of  the  phenomena  of  contractility  have 
yet  been  studied."  Now  this  "  so  far  "  is  not 
"  yet "  by  any  means  "  very  far."  But  what  is 
meant  by  "  the  manifestations,  j>f  the  phe- 
nomena"? The  manifestations  are  the  phe- 
nomena! and  they  completely  refute  Mr. 
Huxley's  latest  theory.  Again,  we  hear  that 
it  is  "the  rule  rather  than  the  exception,"  or 
that  "  weighty  authorities  have  suggested"  that 
such  and  such  things  "  probably  occur,"  or,  while 
contemplating  the  nettle-sting,  that  such  "pos- 
sible complexity "  in  other  cases  "  dawns  upon 
one."  On  other  occasions  he  admits  that 
1  Scotsman,  November  9,  1868. 


1 5  2  Protoplasm. 

"  perhaps  it  would  not  yet  be  safe  to  say  that 
all  forms,"  etc.  Nay,  not  only  does  he  directly 
say  that  "  it  is  by  no  means  his  intention  to 
suggest  that  there  is  no  difference  between  the 
lowest  plant  and  the  highest,  or  between  plants 
and  animals,"  but  he  directly  proves  what  he 
says,  for  he  demonstrates  in  plants  and  animals 
an  essential  difference  of  power.  Plants  can 
assimilate  inorganic  matters,  animals  can 
not,  etc, 

18.  "Mr.  Huxley's  ideas  as  to  the  composition 
of  protoplasm  have  already  been  noticed,  and  it 
has  been  shown  that  they  are  clearly  opposed 
to  the  known  facts  of  science.  Here  a  simple 
alternative  presents  itself ;  either  Mr.  Huxley  is 
familiar  with  the  elementary  facts  of  organic 
chemistry,  In  which  case  he  would  be  aware  of 
the  impossibility  of  such  a  composition  ;  or  he 
Is  not  so,  on  which  supposition  it  was  at  least 
indiscreet  to  found  an  important  practical 
doctrine  like  that  of  human  automatism  on  a 
purely  fanciful  chemical  theory.  Which  alter- 
native is  to  be  adopted  may  perhaps  receive 
some  illustration  from  a  parallel  passage  in 
the  essay  '  On  the  Formation  of  Coal,' l 

1 "  Critiques  and  Addresses,"  pp.  109,  I  NX 

L 


Scientific  Sophisms.  153 

where,  referring   to   the  burning  of  coal,   it  is 
said : — 

" '  Heat  comes  out  of  it,  light  comes  out  of  it,  and  if 
we  could  gather  together  all  that  goes  up  the  chimney, 
and  all  that  remains  in  the  grate  of  a  thoroughly-burnt 
coal-fire,  we  should  find  ourselves  in  possession  of  a 
quantity  of  carbonic  acid,  water,  ammonia,  and  mineral 
matters,  exactly  equal  in  weight  to  the  coal ! ' 

"  It  requires  but  the  most  elementary  ac- 
quaintance with  the  subject  to  recognise  that 
the  'quantity'  of  these  products  would  be  at 
least  twice,  probably  thrice,  as  great  as  the 
original  weight  of  the  coal.  A  due  considera- 
tion and  comparison  of  these  facts  will  enable 
the  reader  to  estimate  at  its  true  value  the 
science  from  which  such  stupendous  consequences 
are  so  confidently  deduced."1 

19.  "  How  such  doctrines  came  to  be  received 
can  only  be  accounted  for  in  Professor  Huxley's 
own  words  when  treating  on  some  other  an- 
tagonistic 'teaching,'  which  he  says  was  only 
'  tolerable  on  account  of  the  ignorance  of  those 
by  whom  it  was  accepted.'  Referring  to  some 
anatomical  question,  he  says  further  that  '  it 
would,  in  fact,  be  unworthy  of  serious  refutation, 

1  Dr.  Elam  :  "Automatism  and  Evolution;"  Contempo- 
rary Review ,  October,  1876,  pp.  729,  730. 


154  Protoplasm. 

except  for  the  general  and  natural  belief  that 
deliberate  and  reiterated  assertions  must  have 
some  foundation.' J  It  is  by  this  time  tolerably 
clear  that  Professor  Huxley's  '  Chemistry  of 
Life'  has  no  foundation  except  that  of  'deli- 
berate and  reiterated  assertion.''  "  3 

But  "  if  such  be  the  case  with  the  chemistry, 
what  is  to  be  said  for  the  argument  founded 
upon  it,  or  attached  to  it — if,  indeed,  argument 
it  can  be  called  ? "  It  has  now  been  tried, 
and  found  wanting,  in  every  particular.  It  is 
condemned  by  its  own  admissions.  It  is  con- 
demned by  the  magnitude  of  its  assumptions. 
It  is  condemned  by  its  antagonism  to  notorious 
facts,  and  its  violation  of  established  principles. 
And  the  sentence  which  has  followed  condem- 
nation is  not  less  just  than  severe  : — 

"I  cannot  more  appropriately  conclude  this 
notice  of  the  doctrine  of '  The  Physical  Basis  of 
Life,'  than  with  an  extract  from  the  author's 
own  anthology  of  criticism,  where,8  speaking  of 
the  theory  of  creation,  he  says  : — 

" '  That  such  verbal  hocus-pocus  should  be  received  as 


1  "  Evidence  as  to  Man's  Place  in  Nature,"  p.  85. 

*  Dr.  Elam:  Contemporary  Review,  September,  1876, 

P.  555- 

*  Professor  Huxley's  "  Lay  Sermons,"  p.  285. 


Scientific  Sophisms.  155 

science  will  one  day  be  regarded  as  evidence  of  the  low 
state  of  intelligence  in  the  nineteenth  century,  just  as  we 
amuse  ourselves  with  the  phraseology  about  nature's 
abhorrence  of  a  vacuum,  wherewith  Torricelli's  compatriots 
were  satisfied  to  explain  the  rise  of  water  in  a  pump.' " l 


1  Dr.  Elaia:  Contemporary  Reviewt  October,  1876  :  p. 
733. 


CHAPTER    VIII. 

THE   THREE  BEGINNINGS. 

"  GIVE  me  matter,"  said  Kant,  "  and  I  will  ex- 
plain the  formation  of  a  world  ;  but  give  me 
matter  only,  and  I  cannot  explain  the  formation 
of  a  caterpillar."  This  dictum  is  widely  different 
from  that  of  Professor  Tyndall,  who  discerns  in 
matter  alone  "the  promise  and  potency  of  all 
terrestrial  life."  To  the  same  effect  is  his 
eulogium  on  the  Italian  philosopher,  Giordano 
Bruno,  of  whom  he  tells  us 1  that  "  he  came  to 
the  conclusion  that  Nature  in  her  productions 
does  not  imitate  the  technic  of  man.  Her  pro- 
cess is  one  of  unravelling  and  unfolding.  The 
infinity  of  forms  under  which  matter  appears 
were  not  imposed  upon  it  by  an  external 
artificer ;  by  its  own  intrinsic  force  and  virtue 
it  brings  these  forms  forth.  Matter  is  not  the 
mere  naked,  empty  capacity  which  philosophers 
have  pictured  her  to  be,  but  the  universal 

1  "  Belfast  Address,"  pp.  19,  20. 


Scientific  Sophisms.  157 

mother  who  brings  forth  all  things  as  the  fruit 
of  her  own  womb." 

In  this  opinion,  Bruno'  and  his  eulogist  are 
at  one.  In  his  controversy  with  Mr.  Martineau, 
a  year  after  the  delivery  of  the  Belfast  Ad- 
dress, Dr.  Tyndall  credits  "pure  matter  with 
the  astonishing  building  power  displayed  in 
crystals  and  trees." l  He  "  figures  "  to  himself 
the  embryological  growth  of  the  babe,  and  its 
"  appearance  in  due  time,  a  living  miracle,  with 
all  its  organs  and  all  their  implications."  He 
dilates,  justly  and  forcibly,  on  the  wonders  of 
eye  and  ear :  the  eye  "  with  its  lens,  and  its 
humours,  and  its  miraculous  retina  behind ; " 
the  ear  "  with  its  tympanum,  cochlea,  and  Corti's 
organ — an  instrument  of  three  thousand  strings, 
built  adjacent  to  the  brain,  and  employed  by 
it  to  sift,  separate,  and  interpret,  antecedent  to 
all  consciousness,  the  sonorous  tremors  of  the  ex- 
ternal world.  All  this  has  been  accomplished," 
the  ells  us,  "not  only  without  man's  con- 
trivance, but  without  his  knowledge,  the  secret 
of  his  own  organization  having  been  withheld 
from  him  since  his  birth  in  the  immeasurable 
past,  until  the  other  day."  And  then  he  adds, 
"Matter  I  define  as  that  mysterious  thing  by 

1  u  Materialism  and  its  Opponents,"  p.  594. 


158  The  Three  Beginnings. 

which  all  this  is  accomplished."1  No  wonder 
then  that  Bruno  should  be  lauded  for  his 
"  closer  "  approximation  "  to  our  present  line  of 
thought."  8 

But  this  expression — "our  present  line  of 
thought  " — is  suggestive,  and  throws  us  back  on 
a  previous  passage  in  the  Address,  in  which  we 
are  told  that  "  to  construct  the  universe  in  idea 
it  was  necessary  to  have  some  notion  of  its 
constituent  parts — of  what  Lucretius  subse- 
quently called  the  '  First  Beginnings.' "  s 

The  "First  Beginnings!"  What  has  "our 
present  line  of  thought "  to  say  on  these  ?  We 
shall  do  well  to  question  it 

And,  to  begin  at  the  beginning,  we  shall  do 
well  to  note — not  merely  the  order,  but — the  fact 
here  admitted.  There  was — no  matter  when — 
an  actual  Beginning :  a  first  start ;  distinct, 
definite.  Antecedently,  there  was  a  prior  time, 
when  this  first  start  had  not  been  made.  The 
process  of  Evolution,  a  "  process  of  unravelling 
and  unfolding,"  is  a  process  which  then  had  not 
begun.  It  is  therefore  not  eternal  It  had  a 
beginning.  But  who  began  it  ? 

1  "  Materialism  and  its  Opponents,"  p.  598. 
»  "Belfast  Address,"  p.  19. 
.  2. 


Scientific  Sophisms,  159 

You  postulate  "Matter."  But  in  so  doing 
you  are  hypothecating  a  substance  which  before 
the  "  First  Beginning "  had  not  begun  to  be. 
How  did  it  originate  ?  Unable  to  answer  that 
question,  you  make  another  assumption.  You 
postulate  "eternity"  for  that  "matter"  of  whose 
origin  you  can  give  no  account.  But  this  ac- 
cumulation of  postulates  will  not  help  you. 
What  is  this  matter  which — impelled  by  the 
exigencies  of  Agnostic  Evolution — you  assume 
to  have  been  self-originated  ?  Make  its  essence 
what  you  will — extension,  with  Descartes ;  or 
palpableness,  with  Fechner — Matter  is  always, 
and  is  manifestly,  the  local  lodgment,  the  objec- 
tive manifestation,  of  Power.  "  The  withered 
leaf  is  not  dead  and  lost,  there  are  Forces  in  it 
and  around  it,  though  working  in  inverse  order ; 
else  how  could  it  rot?"1  Matter,  Force,  Motion, 
are  not  unknown  to  Science  ;  but  of  matter  self- 
originated  and  self-sustained,  of  matter  self- 
existent  and  therefore  eternal ;  of  self-originated 
force,  or  self-originated  motion ;  of  all  these 
throughout  the  realm  of  the  inorganic  world, 
Science  knows  nothing. 

When  therefore  we  have  granted  "the  eternity 
of  matter,"  the  theory  of  Evolution  is  as  far  as 

1  Carlyle  :  "  Sartor  Resartus,"  book  i.  chap.  xi.  p.  43. 


160  The  Three  Beginnings. 

ever  from  being  able  to  make  a  "beginning." 
That  theory  requires  not  merely  matter,  but 
matter  in  motion.  Not  merely  matter  in  mass, 
but  matter  in  its  constituent  atoms.  Matter  so 
minutely  subdivided  as  to  be  immeasurably 
beyond  the  sphere  of  visibility  ;  and  yet  matter 
not  within  the  sphere  of  infinite  divisibi- 
lity. "The  atoms  "  are  " the  first  beginnings."  l 
But  speculation  is  at  fault  as  to  the  mode  in 
which,  or  the  power  by  which,  they  "first  began." 
In  his  panegyric  on  Lucretius,  Professor  Tyndall 
draws  special  attention  to  his  "  strong  scientific 
imagination  ; "  3  and  tells  us  that  "  his  vaguely 
grand  conception  of  the  atoms  falling  eternally 
through  space  suggested  the  nebular  hypothesis 
to  Kant,  its  first  propounder."3  The  "eternity" 
of  these  falling  atoms,  however,  must  not  be 
confounded  with  the  antecedent  "  eternity  "  of 
their  origination.  Like  the  "  eternity "  of  the 
rhetorical  preacher,4  it  has  its  own  statute  of 
limitations.  It  came  to  an  end.  While  it 
lasted  there  might  have  been  seen,  "  far  beyond 
the  limits  of  our  visible  world"  (by  aid  of  a 

»  "Belfast  Address,"?.  8. 
•  Ibid,  p.  9. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  10. 

4  Eternity  :    "  An   infinite  candle  ;    lighted — at   both 


Scientific  Sophisms. 

"strong  scientific  imagination"),  "atoms  in- 
numerable," "  falling  silently  through  im- 
measurable intervals  of  time  and  space."  l 

"  Falling  eternally  through  space  : "  "  falling 
silently  through  immeasurable  intervals  : "  but 
this  eternal  silence  was  broken  by  "great 
shocks  of  sound,"  "  the  mechanical  shock  of 
the  atoms  ; " l  and  this  eternal  falling  came  to 
an  end  when  "  the  interaction  of  the  atoms  "  a 
came  to  a  beginning.  How  came  that  be- 
ginning ?  Nothing  more  simple.  At  first, 
the  atoms,  silently  falling,  fell  in  parallel 
lines.  After  that  they  began  to  deflect  from 
the  perpendicular.  Not  all  of  them ;  nor  all 
in  the  same  direction :  but  only  so  many, 
and  in  so  many  directions  as  were  necessary 
to  produce  "  the  mechanical  shock,"  and  "  the 
interaction."  But  falling  is  motion,  and  matter 
is  inert,  and  atoms  in  motion  are  atoms  in 
which  inertness  has  been  overcome  by  a  force 
external  to  themselves,  and  falling  atoms  are 
atoms  gravitating  towards  a  centre.  What 
centre  ?  and  how  originated  ?  Why  should 
atoms  in  motion  have  moved  originally  all 
in  one  direction  ?  or  why  should  they  have 
ceased  to  do  so  ?  What,  and  whence,  is  that 

»  "  Belfast  Address,"  p.  10.  .     »  IMa.,  p.  & 


1 62  The  Three  Beginnings. 

Force  which  first  moved  them, — which  moved 
them  in  parallel  lines, — which  deflected  them 
from  the  perpendicular, — as  assumed  by  the 
hypothesis  ? 

"It  is  certain,"  according  to  "the  doctrine 
of  Evolution,"  "  that  the  existing  world  lay, 
potentially,  in  the  cosmic  vapour."  But  where 
it  lay  before  the  cosmic  vapour  existed,  de- 
ponent saith  not.  "The  fundamental  pro- 
position of  Evolution "  is,  as  we  have  seen, 
"  that  the  whole  world,  living  and  not  living,  is 
the  result  of  the  mutual  interaction,  according 
to  definite  laws,  of  the  fo'rces  possessed  by  the 
molecules  of  which  the  primitive  nebulosity  of 
the  universe  was  composed." l  Fundamental, 
however,  as  Professor  Huxley  declares  it  to  be, 
it  is  very  far  indeed  from  "  The  First  Begin- 
ning." 

This  "  nebulosity  was  composed  "  of  certain 
"  molecules."  But  nebulosity  is  a  state  or  con- 
dition ;  not  a  substance.  Like  the  rigidity  of 
an  iron  bar,  or  the  malleability  of  gold-leaf, 
or  the  ductility  of  copper  wire,  "  nebulosity " 
is  a  word  not  of  matter,  but  of  mode.  It 
denotes  a  property,  or  it  specifies  a  condition  ; 
but  it  does  not  distinguish,  still  less  does  it 

1  Professor  Huxley :  "  Critiques  and  Addresses,"  p.  305. 


Scientific  Sophisms.  163 

define,  a  substance.  It  is  characteristic  of 
unintelligible  hypotheses,  not  less  than  of 
"  cosmic  gas."  In  this  instance,  however,  let 
it  pass.  We  will  not  say  that  it  was  "  caused," 
— that  word  might  lead  us  back  in  the  search 
for  a  vera  causa  to  a  "  fi^st  beginning," — 
but  only  that  it  was  "composed."  We  will 
not  even  inquire  who  "  composed "  it  And 
yet,  if  it  were  permitted  us  to  inquire  at  all, 
we  might  perhaps  be  excused  for  asking, 
How  do  you  know  that  this  nebulosity  was 
"  primitive  "  ?  or  that  its  constituent  "  molecules  " 
were  "  possessed "  of  forces  ?  or  that  these 
forces  were  controlled  by  "  definite  laws  "  ?  or 
that  the  relation  between  them  was  that  of 
"  mutual  interaction "  ?  or  "  that  the  whole 
world,  living  and  not  living," — the  molecules 
themselves  included, — "  is  the  result "  solely 
and  exclusively  of  the  "mutual  interaction" 
which  you  have  imagined  ? 

What  a  tissue  of  conjectures  is  here  And 
yet  all  this  is  assumed  as  "  certain,"  and  is 
postulated  as  "the  fundamental  proposition  of 
Evolution." 

But  now,  suppose  it  certain :  what  then  ? 
It  leaves  us  as  far  as  ever  from  a  knowledge 
of  "the  first  beginnings."  It  tells  us  of 
"  forces  "  controlled  by  "  definite  laws."  But  if 


164  The  Three  Beginnings. 

it  tells  us  truly,  then  the  law  is  the  controlling 
Power,  and  has  a  priority  over  the  powers 
controlled.  Then  "the  forces  possessed  by  the 
molecules"  were  at  best  subordinate  and  se- 
condary: the  "definite  laws"  alone  were 
primary  and  supreme.  But  laws  never  make 
themselves.  Who  made  these  ?  and  who  made 
them  thus  distinctly  "  definite  "  ? 

But  even  their  definiteness  is  not  greater 
than  their  complexity.  And  this  complexity 
— immeasurably  beyond  our  power  of  explora- 
tion— is  everywhere  adjusted  to  the  attainment 
of  a  common  end.  Who  originated  a  com- 
plexity so  intricate,  yet  so  illimitable  ?  Who 
established  this  unvarying  adjustment  of  it — in 
the  very  "  first  beginning "  ?  For  we  are  now 
asked  to  imagine  space  filled  with  a  frictionless 
fluid ;  to  suppose  that  some  portions  of  this 
fluid  did  somewhere,  somehow,  by  some  means, 
at  some  time  or  other,  become  "  rotational ; " 
and  that  having  by  rotation  gained  rigidity, 
they  can  now,  by  the  latest  triumphs  of  hydro- 
dynamics, be  "  proved  "  to  be  indivisible  and 
indestructible.  Let  it  be  granted.  Granted 
that  light,  heat,  sound,  electricity,  magnetism,  are 
molecular  movements  mutually  transmutable  ; 
that  arrested  molar  movement  displays  itself 
as  molecular  movement ;  that  the  pressure  of 


Scientific  Sophisms.  165 

a  gas  is  due  to  the  varying  motion  of  its 
molecules  impinging  on  the  walls  of  the  vessel 
that  contains  it ;  that  the  rigidity,  or  space- 
occupying  power  of  matter,  is  due  to  the 
formation  of  vortices  in  a  frictionless  ether,  and 
that  each  vortex-atom  is  thenceforth  inde- 
structible ;  when  the  reality  of  the  conceptions 
thus  assumed  has  been  granted,  then  by  exactly 
so  much  has  the  absolute  necessity  been  in- 
creased of  assigning — at  "the  first  beginning" 
— a  First  Cause,  equal  not  only  to  the  origina- 
tion of  Matter  and  of  Force,  but  equal  to  the 
origination  of  matter  thus  constituted,  and  of 
force  thus  adjusted. 

Evolution  is  thus  seen  to  be  the  measure 
of  Involution.  Whatever  has  been  evolved 
in  the  Effect  was  previously  involved  in  the 
Cause.  To  deny  this  is  to  affirm  that  the  effect 
may  transcend  the  cause.  If  therefore — though 
in  utter  contempt  of  scientific  verity — we  were 
to  resolve  all  chemical  forces  into  forces. me- 
chanical, all  life  into  chemistry,  and  the  infinite 
diversity  of  living  beings  into  mere  variety  in 
the  play  of  molecular  forces,  ultimately  resolving 
itself  into  a  motion  or  motions  of  the  universal 
ether,  we  should  simply  have  increased  by 
so  much  our  previous  estimate  of  the  Power 
which — at  the  "first  beginning" — was  able 


1 66  The  Three  Beginnings. 

thus    "potentially"     to     endow    "the    cosmic 
vapour." 

Matter,  Force,  Order,  Law,  Diversity  in 
Unity,  Concord  in  Complexity :  they  are  all 
known  to  us,  but  not  one  of  them  is  known 
as  self-originated.  Distinct  in  character,  defi- 
nite in  operation,  invariable  in  result :  who  made 
them  so  ?  You  trace  "  the  whole  world,  living 
and  not  living,"  to  certain  "  properties  "  of  Mat- 
ter, acted  upon  by  certain  capacities  of  Force, 
operating  in  an  invariable  Order,  under  the  reign 
of  Law.  You  do  well.  Pursue  your  induction 
to  "  The  First  Beginnings."  Whence  came  those 
"  properties "  of  matter  ?  those  capacities  of 
force  ?  Order  could  not  regulate  them  before 
Matter  received  them.  Could  Matter  create 
them?  Through  all  the  "immeasurable  inter- 
vals of  time  and  space,"  Matter  has  never 
created  one  single  atom.  Causa  causarum: 
what  was  that  ?  Whatever  it  was,  you  will  not 
be  ctble  to  ignore  it,  except  by  refusing  to  go 
back  to  "  The  First  Beginning." 

That  "  first "  beginning  was  followed  by  a 
second.  Immovably  based  on  the  deep  founda- 
tions of  the  inorganic  world,  there  rises  every- 
where, elaborate  and  multifarious,  the  myste- 
rious superstructure  of  organization  and  Life. 

M 


Scientific  Sophisms.  167 

No  conclusion  of  modern  science  is  more 
widely  received  or  more  confidently  maintained 
than  that  which  teaches  that  in  the  early  history 
of  our  planet  life  was  unknown.  Not  only  was 
it  not  actual :  it  was  not  possible.  Life  fhen 
was  not.  But  now  life  is.  Life,  then,  had  a 
beginning.  What  was  that  beginning  ?  And 
whence  ? 

"  If,"  says  Professor  Huxley,1  "  the  hypo- 
thesis of  Evolution  be  true,  living  matter  must 
have  arisen  from  not-living  matter,  for,  by  the 
hypothesis,  the  condition  of  the  globe  was  at  one 
time  such  that  living  matter  could  not  have 
existed  on  it,  life  being  entirely  incompatible 
with  the  gaseous  state."  And  he  adds  that, 
even  if  we  adopt  Sir  William  Thomson's  theory, 
that  life  on  this  planet  may  have  been  derived 
from  life  on  some  other,  the  difficulty  of 
accounting  for  its  origination  is  as  great  as 
ever.  For  the  nebular  theory,  which  is  a  part 
of  the  hypothesis  of  Evolution,  asserts  that  all 
the  worlds  were  once  in  "  the  gaseous  state." 

"But,"  he  continues,  "living  matter  once 
originated,  there  is  no  necessity  for  another 
origination,  since  the  hypothesis  postulates  the 
unlimited,  though  perhaps  not  indefinite, 
modifiability  of  such  matter."  Waiving,  for 
1  Encyclopedia  Britannica,  Article  "Biology." 


1 68  The  Three  Beginnings. 

the  present,  the  "unlimited  modifiability  " 
thus  postulated,  it  is  important  to  observe 
the  profound  significance  of  the  admission  here 
made.  "  Living  matter  once  originated  :  "  yes, 
but  how  ?  To  that  crucial  question,  the  answer, 
on  the  same  high  authority,  is  given  in  these 
words  :  "  Of  the  causes  which  have  led  to  the 
origination  of  living  matter,  it  may  be  said  that 
we  know  absolutely  nothing."  "  The  present 
state  of  knowledge  furnishes  us  with  no  link 
between  the  living  and  the  not-living."  l  But 
however  inscrutable  the  mode,  there  is  no  ques- 
tion— nor  any  room  for  question — as  to  the  fact. 
"  Living  matter "  was  "  once  originated"  Life 
had  a  Beginning. 

Impenetrable,  however,  as  is  the  veil  which 
hides  from  our  observation  the  origin  of  Life, 
still  more  inscrutable  is  the  mystery  which 
shrouds  the  first  emergence  of  the  self-conscious 
Mind. 

Mr.  John  Stuart  Mill  admits  the  existence  of 
the  mind  in  the  form  of  a  "  thread  of  conscious- 
ness," "  aware  of  itself  as  past  and  future,"  and 
possessing  a  conviction  of  the  simultaneous 
existence  of  other  "threads  of  consciousness" 
and  of  numerous  permanent  possibilities  of 
1  Encyclopaedia  Britannica^  Article  "  Biology." 


Scientific  Sophisms.  1 69 

sensation.1  And  Professor  Huxley  asks,  "  Is 
our  knowledge  of  anything  we  know  or  feel 
more  or  less  than  a  knowledge  of  states  of 
consciousness  ? "  "  And,"  he  adds,  "  our  whole 
life  is  made  up  of  such  states." 3  And  again, 
in  the  same  connection,  he  tells  us  of  that 
"  highest  degree  of  certainty  which  is  given  by 
immediate  consciousness." 

But  what  then  is  this  consciousness  ?  and 
whence  ?  Professor  Huxley's  language  on  the 
subject  is  particularly  confident,  although  at 
present  it  is  merely  prophetic.  "  I  hold,"  he 
says,  "with  the  materialist,  that  the  human  body, 
like  all  living  bodies,  is  a  machine,  all  the  opera- 
tions of  which  will  sooner  or  later  be  ex- 
plained upon  physical  principles."  And  again  : 
"  I  believe  that  we  shall  arrive  at  a  mechanical 
equivalent  of  consciousness,  just  as  we  have 
arrived  at  a  mechanical  equivalent  of  heat."8 
But  the  vaticinatory  character  of  these  opinions 
is  their  least  remarkable  feature.  Professor 
Huxley  "  holds "  that  all  living  things  are 
machines,  and  "  believes  "  that  "  thought  is  as 
much  a  function  of  matter  as  motion  is  ;" 
but,  as  Dr.  Beale  observes,  "of  evidence  in 

1  Mill  upon  Hamilton,  p.  212. 

t  "  J,ay  Sermons :  "  Descartes,  p.  359. 

'  Macmillaiis  Magazine,  vol.  xxii.  p.  78. 


170  The  Three  Beginnings. 

support  of  these  beliefs  there  is  none  that  will 
bear  investigation,  none  that  would  convince 
any  reasonable  being."  "  Such  opinions  and 
beliefs  on  the  mechanics  of  life  and  thought 
are  certainly  very  striking,  but  it  is  remarkable 
that  no  one  who  entertains  them  has  considered 
it  necessary  to  adduce  facts  or  arguments  in 
their  support.  The  mechanical  theory  of  life 
and' consciousness  rests  upon  authority  whose 
utterances  are  dogmatic  and  not  dependent  upon 
reason,  fact,  observation,  and  experiment."  l 

Widely  different  is  the  language  of  Mr. 
Herbert  Spencer,  and  of  Professor  Tyndall, 
in  which  we  are  assured  that  "our  states  of 
consciousness  are  mere  symbols  of  an  outside 
entity  which  produces  them  and  determines  the 
order  of  their  succession,  but  the  real  nature  of 
which  we  can  never  know."  3  It  must  not  be 
concealed  however  that,  after  all,  Professor 
Tyndall  does  not  differ  from  Professor  Huxley 
more  widely  than  Professor  Huxley  differs  from 
himself.  It  is  not  always  that  he  indulges  in 
prophetic  imaginings  of  "  a  mechanical  equiva- 
lent of  consciousness."  When,  as  above  quoted, 
he  tells  us  of  what  he  "holds"  "with  the 
materialist,"  we  have  only  to  turn  to  his  "  Phy- 

1  "  Protoplasm  ;  or  Matter  and  Life."     1874.     P.  119. 
•  "Belfast  Address,"  p.  57. 


Scientific  Sophisms.  171 

siology  "  to  find  materials  for  the  utter  refuta- 
tion of  materialism. 

"  We  class,"  he  says,  "  sensations  along  with 
emotions,  and  volitions,  and  thoughts,  under  the 
common  head  of  states  of  consciousness.  But 
what  consciousness  is,  we  know  not ;  and  how 
it  is  that  anything  so  remarkable  as  a  state 
of  consciousness  comes  about  as  the  result  of 
irritating  nervous  tissue  is  just  as  unaccount- 
able as  the  appearance  of  the  Djin  when  Alad- 
din rubbed  his  lamp  in  the  story."  1 

"  Some,"  says  Dr.  Beale,  "  have  taught  that 
mind  transcends  life,  and  life  transcends  che- 
mistry, just  as  chemical  affinity  transcends  me- 
chanics. But  no  one  has  proved,  and  no  one 
can  prove,  that  mind  and  life  are  in  any  way 
related  to  chemistry  and  mechanics." 2  Even  if 
the  step  from  mechanics  to  chemistry  had  been 
admitted  as  ascertained  and  proved,  it  would 
still  remain  true  that  the  step  from  chemistry 
to  life  is  a  mere  unsupported  assumption ;  an 
assumption  "without  the  slightest  reason." 

"  How  any  material  impressions  should  awake 
thought ;  but,  still  more,  how,  in  independence  of 
all  impressions,  thought  should  be  all  the  while 
there,  alive  and  active,  a  world  by  itself — that 

1  P.  193- 

*  "  Protoplasm,"  p.  299, 


172  The  Three  Beginnings. 

is  the  mystery."  And  that  mystery  no  scalpel, 
no  microscope,  will  ever  explain.  "  Mechanical 
balances  the  most  delicate,  chemical  tests  the 
most  sensitive,  are  all  powerless  there.  And 
why  ?  Simply  because  consciousness  arid  they 
are  incommensurable :  of  another  nature,  of 
another  world  from  the  first,  sundered  from 
each  other  by  the  whole  diameter  of  being." 

But  whence  came  this  "other  world,"  this 
new  "  incommensurable "  ?  and  whence  the 
"great  gulf,"  the  impassable  chasm,  which 
marks  the  new  beginning  ?  Mens  agitat 
molem ;  but  that  implies  for  Mens  a  special 
nature,  a  special  relation,  and  a  special  origin. 
What  was  that  origin  ?  and  whence  ? 

Whatever  its  source,  whatever  its  nature, 
the  one  broad  patent  fact  remains  alike  in- 
dubitable and  incontestable : — there  was  a  de- 
finite epoch  in  which  the  human  mind  first 
came  into  being.  Thought  began  to  be.  In- 
telligence, self-conscious,  emerged — though  not 
from  the  world  of  matter — to  be  enthroned  in 
the  World  of  Mind.  Whence  came  it  ?  Who 
will  tell  us?  For  to  Agnostic  Evolution  a 
phenomenon  so  portentous  is  absolutely  fatal. 
Scientific  Materialism  can  give  no  account  of 
it  It  is  perfectly  "UNACCOUNTABLE." 

And  yet  it  is  true ! 


CHAPTER  IX. 
THE   THREE  BARRIERS. 

+-    • 

"So  long  as  you  have  that  fire  of  the  heart 
within  you,  and  know  the  reality  of  it,"  says 
Mr.  Ruskin,  "you  need  be  under  no  alarm  as 
to  the  possibility  of  its  chemical  or  mechanical 
analysis.  The  philosophers  are  very  humorous 
in  their  ecstasy  of  hope  about  it ;  but  the  real 
interest  of  their  discoveries  in  this  direction  is 
very  small  to  human-kind."1  And  the  same 
may  be  said  of  the  discoveries  themselves. 
Their  actual  amount,  not  less  than  their  real 
interest,  is  "  very  small."  So  small  indeed,  that 
"  their  ecstasy  about  it " — though  merely  an 
"  ecstasy  of  hope  " — is  a  "  very  humorous  "  spec- 
tacle. He  who  doubts  this  nas  not  read  Mr. 
Darwin. 

"  It  requires  a  long  succession  of  ages  to 
adapt  an  organism  to  some  new  and  peculiar 
form  of  life,  as,  for  instance,  to  fly  through  the 

1  "  The  Queen  of  the  Air."   London,  1869,  p.  70. 


174  Scientific  Sophisms. 

air."1  "We  do  not  see  the  transitional  grade 
through  which  the  wings  of  birds  have  passed  ; 
but  what  special  difficulty  is  tliere  in  believing 
that  it  might  profit  the  modified  descendants  of 
the  penguin,  first  to  become  enabled  to  flap 
along  the  surface  of  the  sea,  like  the  logger- 
headed  duck,  and  ultimately  to  rise  from  its 
surface  and  glide  through  the  air  ? "  *  "  The 
tail  of  the  giraffe  looks  like  an  artificially  con- 
structed fly-flapper  ;  and  it  seems  at  first  in- 
credible that  this  should  have  been  adapted  for 
its  present  purpose  by  successive  slight  modifi- 
cations, each  better  and  better,  for  so  trifling 
an  object  as  driving  away  flies ;  yet  we  should 
pause  before  being  too  positive  even  in  this 
case,  for  ...  a  well-developed  tail  having 
been  formed  in  an  aquatic  animal,  it  might  sub- 
sequently come  to  be  worked  in  for  all  sorts  of 
purposes — as  a  fly-flapper,  an  organ  of  prehen- 
sion, or  as  aid  in  turning,  as  with  the  dog."  8 

In  this  way,  the  tail  of  a  horse  may  have 
been  derived  from  that  of  a  shark,  the  tail  of  a 
cow  from  the  skate,  and  the  giraffe  owe  his  fly- 
flapper  to  a  remote  progenitor,  the  sturgeon. 
Or,  if  there  be  any  who  think  that  to  affirm  this 

1  "  Origin  of  Species,"  First  Edition,  p.  328. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  329. 

•  Ibid.,  p.  215. 


The   Three  Barriers.  175 

is  to  affirm  too  much,  Mr.  Darwin  may  still  ask 
(as  above)  "  What  special  difficulty  there  is  in 
believing"  it?  Especially  "since  it  certainly  is 
not  true  that  new  organs  appear  suddenly  in 
any  class."  1 

The  counterpart  of  this  strange  story  is  still 
more  worthy  of  a  place  in  the  record  of  the 
"Thousand  and  One  Nights."  For  not  only 
have  so  many  terrestrial  creatures  been  derived 
from  an  "  aquatic  origin  "  2  by  that  marvellous 
metaphor  called  Natural  Selection,  but,  on  the 
other  hand,  there  are  not  wanting  some  land- 
animals  that,  renouncing  their  original  nature, 
have  become  aquatic.  Surprising  as  it  may  be 
to  learn  that  a  giraffe  was  once  a  fish,  it  is  not 
less  surprising  to  be  told  that  a  whale  was  once 
a  bear,  And  yet,  "  In  North  America,  the  black 
bear  was  seen  by  Hearne  swimming  for  hours 
with  widely-open  mouth,  thus  catching,  like  a 
whale,  insects  in  the  water.  /  see  no  difficulty 
in  a  race  of  bears  being  rendered  by  Natural 
Selection  more  and  more  aquatic  in  their  struc- 
ture and  habits,  with  larger  and  larger  mouths, 
till  a  creature  was  produced  as  monstrous  as  a 
whale."  3  With  this  difference,  however :  that, 

1  "  Origin  of  Species,"  First  Edition,  p.  214. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  215. 

•  In  the  third  and  subsequent  editions,  the  latter  part 


176  Scientific  Sophisms. 

when  the  ursine  whale  began  his  career  he  had 
his  tail  to  make — an  operation  exactly  the 
reverse  of  that  in  the  previous  story.  The  land 
animals,  having  been  fishes,  derived  their  tails 
from  the  waters  ;  but  in  this  latter  case  a  land 
animal  goes  into  the  water  to  live  like  a  fish  and 
procure  a  tail.  Humorous?  Not  at  all.  Per- 
fectly serious.  Consider  the  authority  of  Mr. 
Huxley,  and  remember  that  "the  hypothesis 
postulates  the  unlimited  modifiability  of  matter." 
Nor  is  it  matter  alone  which,  in  the  hands  of 
"  Natural  Selection "  presents  the  marvellous 
transformations  due  to  unlimited  modifiability. 
"Under  changed  conditions  of  life,"  says  Mr. 
Darwin,  "  it  is  at  least  possible  that  slight  modi- 
fications of  instinct  might  be  profitable  to  a 
species ;  and  if  it  can  be  shown  that  instincts 
do  vary  ever  so  little,  then  I  can  see  no  difficulty 
in  Natural  Selection  preserving  and  continually 
accumulating  variations  of  instinct  to  any  extent 
that  was  profitable.  It  is  thus,  /  believe,  that  all 
the  most  complex  and  wonderful  instincts  have 
originated." * 

of  this  passage  is  omitted,  for  no  apparent  reason.  No 
hint  is  given  that  Mr.  Darwin  now  sees  any  difficulty 
where  he  saw  none  before,  and  the  statement  as  now  left 
still  contains  the  suggested  transformation  ;  a  suggestion 
strengthened  by  the  connection  in  which  it  is  found. 
1  "  Origin  of  Species,"  p.  229. 


The   Three  Barriers.  177 

This  is  too  much  for  M.  Flourens.  "  Surely," 
says  that  accomplished  naturalist,  "we  cannot 
take  this  as  meant  to  be  serious.  Natural  Se- 
lection choosing  an  instinct ! 

' ...     La  poe'sie  a  ses  licences,  mais 
Celle-ci  passe  un  peu  les  bornes  que  j'y  mets.' n  l 

Mr.  Darwin,  however,  is  serious  enough,  and 
maintains  in  all  good  faith,  that  peculiar  in- 
stincts are  in  all  cases  the  result  not  of  original 
endowment,  but  of  subsequent  acquisition  ;  "  by 
the  slow  and  gradual  accumulation  of  numerous 
slight,  yet  profitable  variations."2  Individual 
life,  as  well  as  the  life  of  the  community,  whether 
in  ants  or  bees,  was  once  a  totally  different  thing 
from  what  we  now  behold  ;  then  beavers  did  not 
build,  and  neither  the  stork  nor  the  swallow 
knew  their  appointed  seasons. 

Il  treating  of  the  ants  and  the  honey-bee, 
Mr.  Darwin  attempts  to  account  for  that  striking 
peculiarity — the  groundwork  of  much  of  their 
polity — the  existence  of  neuters. 

" Thus,  I  believe"  he  says,  " it  has  been  with  social 
insects ;  a  slight  modification  of  structure  or  instinct, 

1  "Examen    du   Livre  de   M.  Darwin  sur   L'Origine 
des  Especes."     Par  P.  Flourens.     (Paris,  1864.)     P.  55. 
Vide  infrd:  Appendix,  Note  C. 

2  "  Origin  of  Species,"  p.  230. 


178  Scientific  Sophisms. 

correlated  with  the  sterile  condition  of  certain  members 
of  the  community,  has  been  advantageous  to  the  com- 
munity ;  consequently  the  fertile  males  and  females  of 
the  same  community  flourished,  and  transmitted  to  their 
fertile  offspring  a  tendency  to  produce  sterile  members, 
having  the  same  modification.  And  I  believe  this  process 
has  been  repeated,  until  that  prodigious  amount  of  dif- 
ference between  the  fertile  and  sterile  females  of  the  same 
species  has  been  produced,  which  we  see  in  many  social 
insects." 1 

But  the  very  existence  of  "the  community  " 
(in  the  case  of  the  honey-bees,  for  example) 
depends  upon  the  specific  arrangements  of  the 
present  polity  and  constitution.  Alter  these 
arrangements,  and  the  polity  is  at  an  end  ;  "  the 
community"  exists  no  longer.  If,  therefore,  at 
any  time,  all  the  females  were  fertile,  as  this 
explanation  implies  that  they  once  were,  then 
"  the  community  "  did  not  exist  ;  and  its  opera- 
tions, however  "  slight,"  in  "  modification  of 
structure,  or  instinct,"  at  a  time  when  it  was 
non-existent,  are  unimaginable,  except  in 
Utopia. 

If  only  they  were  imaginable,  the  "  scientific 
imagination "  would  not  lack  exercise.  We 
should  in  that  case  have  to  imagine  that  when 
the  tertile  females  were  transforming — not  them- 
selves but — their  posterity  into  sterile  members 

1  "  Origin  of  Species,"  p.  260. 


The  Three  Barriers.  179 

for  the  benefit  of  society,  there  was  one  remark- 
able exception.  One  female  there  was  who,  by 
a  long  preconcerted  scheme,  though  by  a  most 
occult  and  undiscoverable  process,  was  all  the 
while  prodigiously  increasing  her  fertility  in 
order  to  become  the  sole  Mother  and  Queen  of 
the  whole  hive!  We  should  have  to  imagine 
fertile  animals  agreeing  to  produce,  and  actually 
producing,  sterile  offspring !  "  The  fertile  males 
and  females  flourished ;  and  transmitted  to 
their  fertile  offspring  a  tendency  to  produce 
sterile  members ! "  Fertile  parents  transmit, 
through  fertile  progeny,  a  tendency  to  produce 
sterility  incapable  of  further  production  !  "  Hu- 
morous "  ?  Not  at  all.  The  theory  requires  it, 
and  therefore,  quite  seriously,  Mr.  Darwin  "be- 
lieves it." 

By  one  of  his  earliest  and  acutest  critics  it 
was  justly  observed,  that  "  If  we  except  a  pass- 
ing cavil  at  the  imperfect  knowledge  of  optics 
displayed  in  the  mechanism  of  the  eye,  Mr. 
Darwin  can  scarcely  be  said  to  have  touched 
the  evidence  for  design  deduced  from  the  feli- 
cities of  fabric  and  deep-lying  adjustments,  so 
profusely  exemplified  throughout  the  animal 
Kingdom.  He  tells  us  indeed  how  the  pigeon's 
feather  may  be  varied,  but  not  how  the  pigeon 
came  to  be  feather-clad  at  all.  He  leaves  us 

N 


i  So  Scientific  Sophisms. 

quite  in  the  dark  also  as  to  the  mode  in  which 
natural  selection  sets  to  work  in  the  multiplying 
of  air-sacs,  or  in  the  boring  of  bones,  to  increase 
the  facilities  for  flotation  and  flight.  But  he 
devotes  a  large  portion  of  a  chapter  on  Instinct, 
otherwise  extremely  graceful  and  interesting, 
to  a  hypothetical  exposition  of  the  processes 
by  which  the  common  hive-bee,  Apis  mdlifica, 
might  have  distanced  her  less  skilful  kindred 
Melipona  and  Bombus ;  and  how  the  wonderful 
phenomena  of  sexual  suppression  and  vicarious 
labour  might  have  arisen  among  the  social  in- 
stincts of  the  bee  and  ant  tribes  generally.  "No 
one,  since  Touchstone's  time,  has  set  such  store 
on  the  virtues,  or  so  taxed  the  capacities,  of  an 
If.  A  certain  abstract  theorem  conceded,  if 
Bombus  or  Melipona  could  be  brought  to  put 
that  theorem  in  practice,  one  huge  stumbling- 
block  would  be  removed  from  Mr.  Darwin's 
speculative  path.  But  this  is  the  hitch.  It  is 
as  much  out  of  the  question  for  Bombus  or 
Melipona,  not  being  a  man,  to  see  with  Mr. 
Darwin's  eyes,  as  it  would  be  for  Mr.  Darwin, 
not  being  a  bee,  to  work  with  Melipona's  tools. 
Slight  deflexions  of  habit,  artificially  provoked, 
in  the  more  highly  endowed  insect,  do  not 
furnish  the  smallest  presumption  of  the  genesis 
of  new  endowments  in  its  inferior  sisterhood. 


The  Three  Barriers.  181 

'  It  may  easily  be  supposed]  in  these  researches, 
is  but  a  sorry  substitute  for,  'It  has  actually 
been  observed'  The  true  tokens  of  consummate 
geometrical'  prescience  can  never  be  simulated 
by  tentative  effort  Had  Mr.  Darwin  lived  two 
thousand  years  ago,  his  ceral  experiments  might 
have  furnished  a  target  for  the  shafts  of  Aristo- 
phanes;1 but,  indifferent  alike  to  savant  and 
satirist,  Melipona  was  then  building  her  cells 
no  better,  and  Mellifica  no  worse.  Those  ex- 
planations of  the  mystery  of  cell-making  which 
really  explain  nothing  are,  however,  moderation 
itself  to  the  inimitable  though  unconscious 
legerdemain  which  converts  an  unanswerable  and 
unblunted  objection  to  our  author's  favourite 
solvent,  drawn  from  the  phenomena  of  insect 
sterility  and  caste,  into  the  occasion  of  a  pane- 
gyric on  its  power.  It  is  his  business^©  prove 
that  natural  selection  has  done  certain  wonderful 
things :  See,  he  virtually  says,  what  wonderful 
things,  far  beyond  my  own  expectation,  natural 
selection  can  do?  A  more  flagrant  intrusion 
of  unpruned  fancy  into  a  domain  sacred  to  the 
severities  of  observation  can  scarcely  be  con- 
ceived. 

"The  social  insects,  like  those  lower  in  the 

i  "  Clouds,"  147-153. 

•  "  Origin  of  Species,"  p.  242. 


1 82  Scientific  Sophisms. 

scale,  must  have  started,  on  Mr.  Darwin's  view, 
as  ordinary  male  and  female,  with  a  common 
share  of  individual  labour ;  on  a  par,  in  this 
respect,  with  a  flock  of  geese,  or  a  herd  of  cattle, 
or  a  community  of  mankind.  Now  let  any 
breeder  of  cattle  consider  through  what  agencies 
a  variety  could  be  attained  of  which  only  one 
birth  in  five  should  be  a  bull  or  a  cow,  the  other 
four  being  natural  neuters,  devoted  subjects  of 
their  perfect  sister,  but  sworn  foes  of  her  spouse. 
It  is  an  aptitude  precisely  analogous  to  this 
that  has  produced,  we  are  asked  to  believe,  the 
economy  of  the  bee-hive.  Or  let  any  trans- 
atlantic admirer  of  the  'domestic  institution* 
of  Formica  rufescens,  turn  over  in  his  mind  the 
means  by  which  every  third  man-child  born  on 
his  estate  should  be  ten  times  the  size  of  the 
rest  of 'the  family;1  or  each  alternate  female 
be  fitted  for  a  nurse  while  forbidden  to  be  a 


1  Mr.  Darwin,  in  noting  the  fact  that  "  the  neuters  of 
several  ants  differ,  not  only  from  the  fertile  females  and 
males,  but  from  each  other,  sometimes  to  an  almost  in- 
credible degree,"  says,  "  The  difference  between  them  is 
the  same  as  if  we  were  to  see  a  set  of  workmen  building 
a  house,  of  whom  many  were  five  feet  high,  and  many 
sixteen  feet  high — but  we  must  further  suppose  that  the 
larger  workmen  had  heads  four  times  as  big  as  those  of 
the  smaller  men,  and  jaws  nearly  five  times  as  big." — 
"  Origin  of  Species,"  pp.  260,  261 


The  Three  Barriers.  183 

mother ;  and  he  would  have  the  measure  of  the 
intrinsic  likelihood  of  the  Darwinian  doctrine, 
in  its  bearing  on  that  insect  and  its  confede- 
rates. It  were  idle  to  enlarge.  There  are 
worthier  lessons  to  be  gleaned  from  the  world 
of  instinct  than  such  as  affront  all  legitimate 
analogy,  and  gratuitously  dissociate  the  marvels 
of  nature  from  their  only  true  solvent,  the 
ordination  of  God." 

Turning  now  from  the  disordered  dreams  of 
unpruned  fancy  to  the  severities  of  observation  ; 
from  ingenious  suppositions  of  what  might  have 
been,  to  the  actual  certainties  that  are  ;  we  find 
all  Comparative  Anatomy  tending  towards  the 
recognition  and  extrication  of  three  supreme 
values,  in  the  grouping  of  animals,  and  the 
graduation  of  life,  past  as  welFas  present: — 
the  BACKBONE,  the  BREAST,  and  the  BK  IN. 
And  the  key  to  the  significance  of  animal  life 
and  its  prerogatives,  thus  grouped  and  graduated, 
is  not,  and  cannot  be,  Selective  Development, 
but  is,  and  must  be,  Elective  Design. 

"  The  first  leet,  in  the  ascending  order,  takes 
note  of  all  animals,  as  Vertebrates  or  Sub- 
vertebrates  :  for  every  individual  organism  en- 
dowed with  a  backbone,  there  are  countless 
millions  without  it  Hence  this  first  or  exterior 


184  Scientific  Sophisms. 

leet  leaves  a  master-group,  palpably  supreme 
in  framework  and  ground-plan  over  three  other 
groups — the  Articulate,  the  Convolute,  and  the 
Radiate — between  which  and  the  master-group 
the  BARRIER  OF  BACKBONE  stands  impassable ; 
at  least  till  it  is  explained  how  a  butterfly  could 
become  a  bird,  or  a  snail  a  serpent,  or  a  star- 
fish acquire  the  skeleton  of  the  salmon  or  the 
shark.  It  is  like  the  going  forth  of  a  Divine 
decree :  '  One  shall  be  taken,  and  three  shall  be 
left.' 

"The  second  leet,  Sub-vertebrates  out  of 
view,  takes  account  of  Vertebrates  themselves 
as  Mammals  or  Sub-mammals.  Among  the 
elect  it  makes  an  inner  election.  Besides  the 
Backbone  it  exacts  the  Breast ;  shedding  off, 
as  before,  three  well-marked  groups  subordinate 
to  the  master-group  of  Mammals  or  Sucklers. 
These  breastless  tribes  are  Birds,  Reptiles,  and 
Fishes ;  holding  high,  low,  and  medium  rank 
among  themselves,  not  so  much  on  the  principle 
of  skeleton,  or  its  specialized  offshoots,  as  on 
that  of  characters  which  are  correlated  to  the 
development  of  care  for  their  young.  .  .  . 
Still  the  Mammal,  by  its  endowment  of  the 
fostering  bosom,  stands  elect,  aloft,  and  apart — 
Bird,  Reptile,  Fish,  far  beneath  in  the  scale ; 


The  Three  Barriers.  185 

and  till  it  is  shown  how  an  animal  that  never 
got  suck  stumbled  on  the  capacity  of  giving 
what  was  never  given  it,  the  BREAST  will 
stand,  against  all  dreams  of  development,  COM- 
PANION-BARRIER to  the  Backbone.  Again  is 
heard  the  elective  edict:  'One  shall  be  taken, 
and  three  shall  be  left.' 

"Third,  last,  innermost  leet:  note  has  to  be 
taken  among  the  Mammalia  themselves,  from 
the  Marsupials  to  Man,  of  the  presence  or 
absence  of  one  testing  character,  and  that  the 
chief — the  Perfect  Brain.  This  is  found  in  one 
creature,  occupying,  as  it  were,  the  inner  ring 
and  core  of  the  concentric  circles  of  vitality,  and 
in  one  alone.  In  the  lowest  variety  of  man  it 
is  present — present  in  the  Negro  or  the  Bush- 
man as  in  the  civilized  European  ;~and  absent 
in  all  below  man — absent  in  the  ape  or  the 
elephant  as  truly  as  in  the  kangaroo  or  the 
duckmole.  To  all  men  the  pleno-cerebral  type 
is  common  :  to  man,  as  such,  it  is  peculiar.  And 
till  we  hear  of  some  Simian  tribe  which 
speculates  on-  its  own  origin,  or  discusses  its 
own  place  in  the  scale  of  being,  we  shall  be 
safe  in  opposing  the  HUMAN  BRAIN,  with 
its  sign  in  language,  culture,  capacity  of  pro- 
gress, as  BARRIER  THE  THIRD  to  Mr.  Darwin's 


1 86  Scientific  Sophisms.  •-, 

scheme."1  "And  thus,  as  in  the  former  leets, 
are  the  triple  tribe  of  under-brains  walled  off 
from  the  Brain  of  Man.3  A  third  time  there 
falls  a  voice  from  the  Excellent  Glory :  '  One 
shall  be  taken,  and  three  shall  be  left.' " 

Below  the  fish,  how  powerless  comparatively, 
all  creatures  are !  The  primates  of  sub-verte- 
brate nature  are  the  ant  and  the  bee.  Most 
mollusks  are  anchored  to  one  spot  for  life,  and 
the  bulkiest  of  crustaceans,  shorn  of  other 
locomotion,  could  only  crawl  in  shallow  waters 
among  his  rocks  and  sands.  The  advent  of 
the  backbone  is  the  advent  of  animal  power  : 
the  type  of  an  all-pervading  and  resistless 
energy.  The  wing  of  the  eagle,  the  jaw  of 

1  "  The  Three  Barriers  :  Notes  on  Mr.  Darwin's  '  Origin 
of  Species.'"  Blackwood  &  Sons.     Pp.  88,  et  seqq.    To 
the  highly-gifted  author  of  this  brilliant  little  book — a 
book  as  admirable  in  method  as  unanswerable  in  effect— 
I  gratefully  record  my  obligations. 

2  "  By  a  purely  inductive  process,  the  sub-human  mam- 
malia   have  been  carefully   distributed   into   the  wave- 
brained,  the  smooth-brained,  and  the  loose-brained,  re- 
presented respectively  by  the  ape,  the  beaver,  and  the 
kangaroo ;  with  a  result,  so  far  as  the  two  departments 
of  science  are  comparable,  like  that  of  the  application  of 
Kepler's  laws  to  the  planetary  motions  :  the  subjects  of 
the  classification  fall,   for  the  first  time,  into  their  true 
places — a  mob  of  animals  becomes  a  regular  army." 


The  Three  Barriers.          '   187 

the  crocodile,  the  spring  of  the  tiger,  the  teeth 
of  the  shark,  the  terrible  coil  of  the  boa-con- 
strictor ;  the  backbone  is  the  basis  of  them 
all. 

Below  the  mammal,  again,  how  loveless,  by 
comparison,  is  the  world  of  life !  There  are 
no  sub-mammalian  mothers ;  animals  below 
that  line  are  parents  or  producers  only.  The 
crossing  of  that  line  is  a  great  work  of  Deity. 
God  creates  a  new  thing  in  the  earth  when  He 
hangs  the  nursling  on  the  mother's  breast,  and 
bids  the  two  be  as  one.  Together  with  the 
prerogative  of  the  nurturing  bosom  there  start 
up  everywhere,  on  land  and  sea,  the  most 
touching  examples  of  brute  devotion  and  of 
passionate  maternity. 

Deep  calleth  unto  deep,  and  the  cry  is  still 
Excelsior !  Nature  is  a  hierarchy  of  which  the 
head  is  man.  Mind,  language,  worship,  civili- 
zation ;  the  will  to  determine,  the  tongue  to 
speak,  the  hand  to  do ;  these — in  their  bound- 
less purport — are  all  lacking  until  the  Creator 
plants  upon  the  scene  the  solitary  owner  of  the 
Perfect  Brain.  Named  in  one  word,  all  these 
are  wisdom ;  and  Man,  "  thinker  of  God's 
thoughts  after  Him,"  is,  among  uncounted 
myriads  of  lower  existentes,  on  this  earth, 
Only  Wise.  Of  this  superiority,  the  human 


1 88  Scientific  Sophisms. 

brain  is  the  badge.  The  attempts  that  have 
been  made  to  minimize,  and  even  to  efface  its 
significance,  will  be  noticed  in  the  sequel ; 
but  the  force  and  effect  of  that  significance  are 
not  to  be  invalidated  and  cannot  be  impaired 
by  disputations  in  detail.  The  one  broad  cha- 
racteristic fact  remains  beyond  dispute :  all 
healthy  human  brains  are  structurally  perfect ; 
but  the  highest  brute  brains  are  structurally 
imperfect.  The  human  brain  is  pleno-cerebral ; 
all  other  brains  are  manco-cerebral.  The 
human  brain,  in  its  least  cultivated  manifes- 
tations, retains  the  latent  franchise  of  progres- 
sive reason  ;  all  other  brains  exhibit  the  rigid 
circumscription  of  unprogressive  instinct.  No 
brute  is  susceptible  of  human  culture ;  while, 
on  the  other  hand,  of  that  culture  there  is  no 
human  infant  that  is  not  susceptible.  Between 
these  two,  the  difference  thus  seen  is  nothing 
less  than  a  difference  absolutely  immeasurable. 


CHAPTER  X. 
ATOMS. 

BUT  these  magnificent  achievements  —  the 
Vertebral  Column,  the  Fostering  Bosom,  the 
Perfect  Brain — with  their  inexplicable  origin, 
their  profound  significance,  their  limitless  re- 
sults, have  been  accomplished  by  the  cosmical 
atoms  alone.  Outside  those  atoms,  or  beyond 
them,  there  is  not  now,  nor  has  there  been  at 
any  time,  any  existence  whatever.  No  sub- 
stance, no  essence,  no  entity,  no  force,  no 
motion.  "  Matter  is  the  origin  of  all  that 
exists  ;  all  natural  and  mental  forces  are  in- 
herent in  it."1  "The  existing  world  lay  po- 
tentially in  the  cosmic  vapour."8  For  "the 
fundamental  proposition  ot  evolution  "  is,  as  we 
have  seen,  "that  the  whole  world,  living  and 
not  living,  is  the  result  of  the  mutual  inter- 
action, according  to  definite  laws,  of  the  forces 
possessed  by  the  molecules  of  which  the 
primitive  nebulosity  of  the  universe  was  com- 

1  Buchner,  ut  sup.,  p.  96. 

1  Prof.  Huxley,  ut  3up.>  p.  64. 


190  Scientific  Sophisms. 

posed."1  In  a  word — and  that,  the  word  of 
Lucretius,  adopted  and  adorned  in  the  Belfast 
Address — "  The  Atoms  are  the  first  beginnings." 
What  then  are  these  ultimate  inorganic  atoms 
on  which  (according  to  the  hypothesis  of  Devel- 
opment) everything  depends  ?  The  idea  ex- 
pressed by  the  word  itself  is  simply  the  idea 
of  "  matter  "  in  minimis,  arising  only  from  an 
arrest  by  a  supposed  physical  limit,  of  a  geo- 
metrical divisibility  possible  without  end.  But 
"  things  which  cannot  be  cut "  might  be  all 
alike ;  or  they  might  be  variously  different, 
inter  se ;  and,  on  setting  out  in  this  inquiry  it 
is  necessary  to  know  on  which  of  these  two 
assumptions  we  are  to  proceed.  If  the  ma- 
terialist is  to  be  credited  with  any  logical  ex- 
actness, it  is  the  former  assumption  alone  that 
is  admissible.  When  he  asks  for  no  more  than 
matter  for  his  purpose  of  constructing  a  uni- 
verse, his  demand  is  restricted  to  tlie  essentials 
/o  matter,  the  characters  which  enter  into  its 
definition.  It  is  from  these  alone  that  he 
pledges  himself  to  deduce  all  the  accessory 
characters  which  appear  in  one  place  though 
not  in  another,  and  which  discriminate  the 
several  provinces  of  nature.  It  is  in  perfect 

1  Prof.  Huxley,  ut  suprb,  p.  64.     Vide  infrd,  Appendix, 
Note  J. 


Atoms.  191 

accordance  with  this,  that  the  "  atomists,"  says 
Lange,  "  attributed  to  matter  only  the  simplest 
of  the  various  properties  of  things  —  those, 
namely,  which  are  indispensable  for  the  pre- 
sentation of  a  something  in  space  and  time,  and 
their  aim  was  to  evolve  from  these  alone  the 
whole  assemblage  of  phenomena."  "  They  it 
was,"  he  adds,  "  who  gave  the  first  perfectly 
clear  notion  of  what  we  are  to  understand  by 
matter  as  the  basis  of  all  phenomena.  With 
the  positing  of  this  notion,  materialism  stood 
complete,  as  the  first  perfectly  clear  and  con- 
sequent theory  of  all  phenomena."1 

If  further  corroboration  of  this  statement 
were  needed,  it  might  be  adduced  from  Mr. 
Herbert  Spencer's  definition  of  Evolution, 
already  quoted  :J — "  Evolution  is  a  change  from 
an  indefinite  incoherent  homogeneity,  to  a  de- 
finite coherent  heterogeneity,  through  continuous 
differentiations  and  integrations."  And  again  : 
— "  From  the  earliest  traceable  cosmical  changes 
down  to  the  latest  results  of  civilization  we  sliall 
find  that  the  transformation  of  the  homogeneous 
into  the  heterogeneous  is  that  in  which  evolu- 
tion essentially  consists."  In  perfect  consis- 
tency with  these  statements  Mr.  Spencer  further 

1  "  Geschichte  des  Materialismus,"  i.  pp.  8,  9. 
*  Vide  suprci,  p.  27. 


192  Scientific  Sophisms. 

contends  that  the  properties  of  the  different 
elements  (i.e.,  the  chemical  elements,  hydrogen, 
carbon,  etc.)  "  result  from  differences  of  arrange- 
ment, arising  from  the  compounding  and  re- 
compounding  of  ultimate  homogeneous  units" ' 
So  that,  to  sum  up  all  in  one  word,  there  is 
but,  as  he  further  tells  us,  "one  ultimate  form 
of  matter,  out  of  which  the  successively  more 
complex  forms  of  matter  are  built  up."9 

These  statements  are  not  lacking,  either  in 
clearness  or  consistency.  Their  only  fault  is 
that  they  are  not  correct.  The  "  one  ultimate 
form  of  matter"  is  not  forthcoming.  The 
"  homogeneous  extended  solids  "  are  not  homo- 
geneous. We  are  not  to  be  surprised  if  we 
should  see  sixty-two  out  of  the  sixty-three 
"  elements "  fall  to  pieces  analytically  before 
our  eyes.  If  we  would  speak  positively  of  the 
simplicity  of  phosphorus  or  carbon,  we  are 
warned  that  "  there  are  no  recognised  ele- 
mentary substances,  if  the  expression  means 
substances  known  to  be  elementary.  What 
chemists  for  convenience  call  elementary  sub- 
stances, are  merely  substances  which  they  have 
thus  far  failed  to  decompose." 

But  let  the  contrary  supposition  be  admitted. 

1  Contemp.  Rev.,  June,  1872. 

*  "  Principles  of  Psychology,"  vol.  i.  p.  155. 


Atoms.  193 

Let  it  be  supposed  that  the  alleged  homogeneity 
were  as  real  as  now  it  is  imaginary.  Let  the 
appeal  be  allowed  which  all  logical  atomists 
make  to  the  case  of  isomeric  bodies,  and  espe- 
cially to  that  of  allotropic  varieties.  Let  such 
varieties  of  appearance  as  those  presented  by 
carbon1  and  phosphorus2  be  attributed,  not  to 
any  qualitative  cause,  but  to  a  different  group- 
ing of  the  atoms  ;  the  morphological  differences, 
if  adequately  obtained,  will  still  contribute  no 
explanation  of  the  observed  variations  of  at- 
tribute. Vary  in  imagination,  as  you  please, 
the  adjustments  of  their  homologous  sides,  so 
as  to  build  molecules  of  several  types,  the 
question  will  still  remain  unanswered, — "  What 
is  there  in  the  arrangement  a  b  c  to  occasion 
'  activity '  in  phosphorus,  while  the  arrangement 
b  a  c  produces  '  inertness  ? ' "  Where  the  pro- 
ducts differ  only  in  geometrical  properties,  and 
consequently  in  optical,  the  explanation  may 
be  admissible,  the  form  and  the  laying  of  the 
bricks  determining  the  outline  and  the  density 
of  the  structure.  But  by  no  device  can  the 
deduction  be  extended  from  the  physical  to  the 

1  Charcoal,  black-lead,  and  diamond. 

2  In  the  yellow,  semi-transparent,  inflammable  form  ; 
and  again  as  an  opaque,  dark  red  substance,  combustible 
only  at  a  much  higher  temperature. 

O 


194  Scientific  Sophisms, 

chemical  properties  :  to  these  last  heterogeneity 
is  essential.  To  deduce  chemical  phenomena 
from  mechanical  conditions,  if  it  be  not  an 
impossible  conception,  may  possibly  be  a  "  fig- 
ment of  the  intellect,"  but  it  is  a  figment  with- 
out any  pretence  to  "  verification." 

"  Even  in  the  last  resort,  if  we  succeed  in  getting  all 
our  atoms  alike,  we  do  not  rid  ourselves  of  an  unex- 
plained heterogeneity  ;  it  is  simply  transferred  from  their 
nature  as  units  to  their  rules  of  combination.  Whether 
the  qualitative  difference  between  hydrogen  and  each  of 
the  other  elements  is  conditional  upon  a  distinction  of 
kind  in  the  atoms,  or  on  definite  varieties  in  their  mode 
of  numerical  or  geometrical  union,  these  conditions  are 
not  provided  for  by  the  mere  existence  of  homogeneous 
atoms  ;  and  nothing  that  you  can  do  with  these  atoms, 
within  the  limits  of  their  definition,  will  get  the  required 
heterogeneity  out  of  them.  Make  them  up  into  molecules 
by  what  grouping  or  architecture  you  will ;  still  the 
difference  between  hydrogen  and  iron  is  not  that  be- 
tween one  and  three,  or  any  other  number  ;  or  between 
shaped  solids  built  off  in  one  direction  and  similar  ones 
built  off  in  another,  which  may  turn  out  like  a  right  and  a 
left  glove.  If  hydrogen  were  the  sole  '  primordial/  and 
were  transmutable,  by  select  shuffling  of  its  atoms,  into 
every  one  of  its  present  sixty-two  associates,  both  the 
tendency  to  these  special  combinations,  and  the  effects 
of  chem  would  be  as  little  deducible  from  the  homogene- 
ous datum  as,  on  the  received  view,  are  the  chemical 
phenomena  from  mechanical  conditions.  I  still  think, 
therefore,  that  M  you  assume  atoms  at  all,  you  may  as 
well  take  the  \\hole  sixty-three  sorts  in  a  lot.  And  this 
startling  multiplication  of  the  original  monistic  assumn- 


Atoms.  195 

tion,  I  understand  Professor  Tyndall  to  admit  as  indis- 
pensable." » 

This  witness  is  true.  The  "  original  monistic 
assumption  "  is  now  discarded  by  Professor  Tyn- 
dall2 and  Professor  Bain  as  emphatically  as  by 
Mr.  Martineau  himself.  The  "  ultimate  homo- 
geneous units  "  of  Mr.  Spencer  are  now  found  to 
be  utterly  inadequate  to  the  task  required  of 
them.  They  must  be  in  motion  ;  they  must  be  of 
various  shapes  ;  they  must  be  of  as  many  kinds 
as  there  are  chemical  elements  ;  for  how  could 
we  possibly  get  water  if  there  were  only  hydro- 
gen elements  to  work  with  ?  And  when,  by 
means  of  this  very  considerable  enlargement  of 
the  original  datum  we  have  got  water,  what  is 
that  further  enlargement  by  which  we  should  be 
able  so  to  manipulate  our  ever-increasing  re- 
sources as  to  educe,  for  example,  consciousness  ? 
Let  some  Power  so  ordain,  and  some  Wisdom 
so  contrive,  that  all  the  atoms  are  affected  by 
gravitation  and  polarity ;  let  there  be,  as 
Fechner  insists  that  there  is,  a  difference 
among  molecules ;  let  there  be  the  inorganic, 
which  can  change  only  their  place,  like  the 

1  The  Rev.  James    Martineau  :    Modem  Materialism 
(Contemp.  Rev.,  vol.  xxvii.  p.  338). 

2  For  Prof.  Bain's  dicta,  see  "  Mind  and  Body " :  pp. 
124-135. 


196  Scientific  Sophisms. 

particles  in  an  undulation ;  and  the  organic, 
which  can  change  their  order,  as  in  a  globule  that 
turns  itself  inside  out.  What  then?  When  you 
have  to  pass  from  mere  sentiency  to  thought 
and  will,  your  Theory  of  Development  is  as 
impotent  as  ever  until  you  have  obtained — what 
only  a  further  hypothesis  can  give — a  handful 
of  Leibnitz's  monads  to  serve  as  souls  in  little. 

"  But  surely  you  must  observe  that  this 
'matter'  of  yours  alters  its  style  with  every 
change  of  service ;  starting  as  a  beggar,  with 
scarce  a  rag  of  '  property '  to  cover  its  bones, 
it  turns  up  as  a  prince  when  large  undertakings 
are  wanted  .  .  .  It  is  easy  travelling  through 
the  stages  of  such  a  hypothesis  ;  you  deposit 
at  your  bank  a  round  sum  ere  you  start,  and 
drawing  on  it  piecemeal  at  every  pause,  com- 
plete your  grand  tour  without  a  debt."1 

If  now,  from  fictitious  fancies  such  as  these, 
we  turn  to  the  actual  facts,  we  shall  find  that 
the  whole  argument  sums  itself  up  in  a  single 
remark  of  Sir  William  Thomson :  "  The  as- 
sumption of  atoms  can  explain  no  property  of 
body  which  has  not  previously  been  attributed 
to  the  atoms  themselves." 

1  Martineau  :  "  Religion  as  Affected  by  Modern  Ma- 
terialism." 


Atoms.  197 

r 

The  "atom"  of  the  modern  mathematical 
physics  has,  accordingly,  given  up  its  preten- 
sion to  stand  as  an  absolute  beginning,  and 
now  serves  only  as  a  necessary  rest  for  ex- 
hausted analysis,  before  setting  forth  on  the 
return  journey  of  deduction.  "  A  simple  ele- 
mentary atom,"  says  Professor  Balfour  Stewart, 
"  is  probably  in  a  state  of  ceaseless  activity  and 
change  of  form,  but  it  is,  nevertheless,  always 
the  same."1  "The  molecule,"  (here  identical 
with  "atom,"  as  the  author  is  speaking  of  a 
simple  substance,  as  hydrogen),  "  though  indes- 
tructible, is  not  a  hard  rigid  body,"  says  Pro- 
fessor Clerk  Maxwell,  "but  is  capable  of 
internal  movements,  and  when  these  are  ex- 
cited it  emits  rays,  the  wave-length  of  which 
is  a  measure  of  the  time  of  vibration  of  the 
molecule."3  But  "change  of  form"  and  "in- 
ternal movements "  are  impossible  without 
shifting  parts,  and  altered  relations  ;  and  where 
then  is  the  final  simplicity  of  the  atom  ?  It 
is  no  longer  a  pure  unit,  but  a  numerical  whole. 
And  as  part  can  separate  from  part,  not  only 
in  thought  but  in  the  phenomena,  how  is  it  an 
"  atom "  at  all  ?  "  What  is  there,  beyond  an 
arbitrary  dictum,  to  prevent  a  part  which 

1  "  The  Conservation  of  Energy,"  p.  7. 
*  "A  Discourse  on  Molecules,"  p.  12. 


198  Scientific  Sophisms.  w 

changes  its  relation  to  its  fellows  from  chang- 
ing its  relation  to  the  whole — removing  to  the 
outside  ?  Such  a  body,  though  serving  as  an 
element  in  chemistry,  is  mechanically  com- 
pound, and  has  a  constitution  of  its  own, 
which  raises  as  many  questions  as  it  answers, 
and  wholly  unfits  it  for  offering  to  the  human 
mind  a  point  of  ultimate  rest.  It  has  accord- 
ingly been  strictly  kept  to  a  penultimate 
position  in  the  conception  of  philosophical 
physicists  like  Gassendi,  Herschel,  and  Clerk 
Maxwell,  and  of  masters  in  the  logic  of  science, 
like  Lotze  and  Stanley  Jevons." 

Nor  is  it  to  be  overlooked  that  the  sixty-three 
kinds  of  atoms  are  not  at  liberty  to  be  neutral 
to  one  another,  or  to  run  an  indeterminate  round 
of  experiments  in  association,  within  the  limits 
of  possible  permutation.  "  Each  is  already 
provided  with  its  select  list  of  admissible  com- 
panions ;  and  the  terms  of  its  partnership  with 
every  one  of  these  are  strictly  prescribed  ;  so 
that  not  one  can  modify,  by  the  most  trivial 
fraction,  the  capital  it  has  to  bring.  Vainly, 
for  instance,  does  the  hydrogen  atom,  with  its 
low  figure  and  light  weight  make  overtures  to 
the  more  considerable  oxygen  element ;  the 
only  reply  will  be,  either  none  of  you  or  two 
of  you.  And  so  on  throughout  the  list."  It  is 


Atoms.  199 

in  view  of  this  property  of  admitting  certain 
definite  possibilities,  while  yet  they  are  so 
limited  as  to  fence  off  and  exclude  all  competing 
possibilities,  that  Sir  John  Herschel  felt  himself 
compelled  to  describe  the  atoms  as  possessing 
"  all  the  characteristics  of  manufactured  articles" 

This  verdict  amuses  Dr.  Tyndall  ;  nothing 
more.  "He  twice1  dismisses  it  with  a  super- 
cilious laugh ;  for  which  perhaps,  as  for  the 
atoms  it  concerns,  there  may  be  some  suppressed 
*  ratio  sufficiens!  But  the  problem  thus  plea- 
santly touched  is  not  one  of  those  which  solventur 
risu  ;  and,  till  some  better  grounded  answer  can 
be  given  to  it,  that  on  which  the  large  and 
balanced  thought  of  Herschel  and  the  masterly 
penetration  of  Clerk  Maxwell  have  alike  settled 
with  content,  may  claim  at  least  a  provisional 
respect."  2 

To  conclude.  The  conception  of  an  infinitude 
of  discrete  atoms,  when  pushed  to  its  hypo- 
thetical extreme,  brings  them  no  nearer  to  unity 
than  homogeneity, — an  attribute  which  itself 
implies  that  they  are  separate  and  comparable 
members  of  a  genus.  And  what  is  the  result  of 
comparing  them  ? 

1  Belfast   Address,  p.  26 ;    and  Fortnightly  Review, 
Nov.,  1875,  p.  598. 

2  Martineau  :  Contemporary  Review,  vol.  xxvii.  p.  345. 


2oo  Scientific  Sophisms. 

They  "  are  conformed,"  we  are  assured,  "  to 
a  constant  type  with  a  precision  which  is  not 
to  be  found  in  the  sensible  properties  of  the 
bodies  which  they  constitute.  In  the  first  place, 
the  mass  of  each  individual,"  "  and  all  its  other 
properties,  are  absolutely  unalterable.  In  the 
second  place,  the  properties  of  all "  "  of  the 
same  kind  are  absolutely  identical." l  Here 
then,  to  adopt  the  weighty  words  of  Mr.  Mar- 
tineau,  "  we  have  an  infinite  assemblage  of 
phenomena  of  Resemblance.  But  further,  these 
atoms,  besides  the  internal  vibration  of  each,  are 
agitated  by  movements  carrying  them  in  all 
directions,  now  along  free  paths,  and  now  into 
collisions.3  Here  therefore,  we  have  phenomena 
of  Difference  in  endless  variety.  And  so  it 
comes  to  this  :  that  our  unitary  datum  breaks 
up  into  a  genus  of  innumerable  contents,  and 
its  individuals  are  affected  both  with  ideally 
perfect  correspondences  and  with  numerous  con- 
trasts of  movement.  What  intellect  can  pause 
and  compose  itself  to  rest  in  this  vast  and 
restless  crowd  of  assumptions  ?  Who  can  restrain 
the  ulterior  question, —  WHENCE  then  these 
myriad  types  of  the  same  letter  imprinted  on 

1  Prof.  Maxwell's  "  Discourse  on  Molecules,"  p.  II. 
*  "  Theory   of   Heat."      By  J.   Clerk  Maxwell,   M.A., 
LL.D.,  F.R.SS.  London  and  Edinburgh.     Pp.  310,  311. 


Atoms.  20 1 

the  earth,  the  sun,  the  stars,  as  if  the  very  mould 
used  here  had  been  lent  to  Sirius,  and  passed 
on  through  the  constellations  ?  " 

For  answer  to  this  "  ulterior  question,"  we 
shall  find  none  more  conclusive,  none  more 
authoritative,  than  that  of  Professor  Maxwell  : — 

"  No  theory  of  evolution  can  be  formed  to 
account  for  the  similarity  of  the  molecules 
throughout  all  time,  and  throughout  the  whole 
region  of  the  stellar  universe,  for  evolution 
necessarily  implies  continuous  change,  and  the 
molecule  is  incapable  of  growth  or  decay,  of 
generation  or  destruction." 

Again  he  says  :  "  None  of  the  processes  of 
Nature,  since  the  time  when  Nature  began,  have 
produced  the  slightest  difference  in  the  proper- 
ties of  any  molecule.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
exact  equality  of  each  molecule  to  all  others  of 
the  same  kind  precludes  the  idea  of  its  being 
eternal  and  self-existent.  We  have  reached 
the  utmost  limit  of  our  thinking  faculties  when 
we  have  admitted  that  because  matter  cannot 
be  eternal  and  self  "existent  it  must  have  been 
created." 

"These  molecules,"  he  adds,  "continue  this 
day  as  they  were  created,  perfect  in  number, 
and  measure,  and  weight ;  and  from  the  inef- 
faceable characters  impressed  on  them  we  may 


202  Scientific  Sophisms. 

learn  that  those  aspirations  after  truth  in  state- 
ment, and  justice  in  action,  which  we  reckon 
among  our  noblest  attributes  as  men,  are  ours 
because  they  are  the  essential  constituents  of 
the  image  of  Him,  who  in  the  beginning  created 
not  only  the  heaven  and  the  earth,  but  the 
materials  of  which  heaven  and  earth  consist." l 

A  fit  pendant  to  this  noble  utterance  is  fur- 
nished in  the  words  of  Professor  Pritchard,  who, 
quoting  this  passage,  adds, — 

"And  this  is  the  true  outcome  of  the  deepest, 
the  most  exact,  and  tJu  most  recent  science  of  our 
age.  A  grander  utterance  has  not  come  from 
the  mind  of  a  philosopher  since  the  days  when 
Newton  concluded  his  Principia  by  his  immor- 
tal scholium  on  the  majestic  Personality  of  the 
Creator  and  Lord  of  the  Universe."  3 

1  "  Discourse  on  Molecules." 

1  Address  at  the  Brighton  Congress,  October,  1874. 


CHAPTER  XL 
APES. 

"  IF,"  says  Prof.  Tyndall,  addressing  his  Bir- 
mingham audience,  "  If  to  any  one  of  us 
were  given  the  privilege  of  looking  back 
through  the  aeons  across  which  life  has 
crept  towards  its  present  outcome,  his  vision 
would  ultimately  reach  a  point  when  the  pro- 
genitors of  this  assembly  could  not  be  called 
human.  From  that  humble  society,  through 
the  interaction  of  its  members  and  the  storing 
up  of  their  best  qualities,  a  ,better  one  em- 
erged ;  from  this  again  a  better  still ;  until 
at  length,  by  the  integration  of  infinitesimals 
through  ages  of  amelioration,  we  came  to  be 
what  we  are  to-day."  l 

If '  we  ask  for  some  warrant  of  evidence 
in  support  of  this  series  of  assertions  founded 
on  assumption,  Mr.  Darwin  replies  that  "On 
the  principle  of  Natural  Selection  with  di- 

1  "  Science  and  Man  : "  Fortnightly  Review,  1877,  p. 
116. 


204  Scientific  Sophisms. 

vergence  of  character,  it  does  not  seem 
incredible,  that  from  some  such  low  and  in- 
termediate form  as  the  lower  algae,  both 
animals  and  plants  may  have  been  developed ; 
and  if  we  admit  this,  we  must  admit  that 
all  organic  beings  which  have  ever  lived  on 
this  earth  may  have  descended  from  some 
one  primordial  form."  1 

In  other  words,  and  to  speak  more  pre- 
cisely, "  Born  of  Electricity  and  Albumen,  the 
simple  monad  is  the  first  living  atom ;  the 
microscopic  animalcules,  the  snail,  the  worm, 
the  reptile,  the  fish,  the  bird,  and  the  quad- 
ruped, all  spring  from  its  invisible  loins. 
The  human  similitude  at  last  appears  in  the 
character  of  the  monkey ;  the  monkey  rises 
into  the  baboon  ;  the  baboon  is  exalted  to  the 
ourang  outang ;  and  the  chimpanzee,  with  a 
more  human  toe  and  shorter  arms,  gives  birth 
to  Man."3  . 

What  Sir  David  Brewster  has  here  done 
for  the  Fauna  on  this  principle  of  Develop- 
ment, Hugh  Miller  has  in  like  manner  done 
for  the  Flora,  when  he  tells  us  that  according 
to  this  theory  "dulse  and  hen-ware  became, 
through  a  very  wonderful  metamorphosis, 

1  "  Origin  of  Species  :"  p.  519. 

1  "  North  British  Review,"  1845,  p.  483. 


Apes.  205 

cabbage  and  spinach ;  that  kelp-weed  and 
tangle  burgeoned  into  oaks  and  willows ; 
and  that  slack,  rope-weed,  and  green-raw, 
shot  up  into  mangel-wurzel,  rye-grass  and 
clover."  i 

And  all  this — in  Mr.  Darwin's  opinion — 
"  does  not  seem  incredible."  There  must  have 
been — we  have  his  word  for  it — "a  series  of 
forms  graduating  insensibly  from  some  ape- 
like creature  to  man  as  he  now  exists."  2 

How  to  derive  the  "  ape-like  creature " 
himself?  By  a  similar  process: — "a  series 
of  forms  graduating  insensibly "  from  a  tad- 
pole to  a  monkey.  The  Ape  is  the  imme- 
diate, but  the  Ascidian  is  the  remote  pro- 
genitor of  the  genus  Homo.  And  these 
Ascidians,  which  "  resemble  tadpoles  in  shape, 
and  swim  by  means  of  a  vibratile  tail,  which 
they  shake  off  when  they  quit  the  larva 
state  and  assume  the  sessile  condition,"  "  have 
been  recently  placed,  by  some  naturalists, 
among  the  Vermes  or  worms." 

As  to  the  ape-like  creature, — 

"  Man  is  descended  from  a  hairy  quadruped, 
furnished  with  a  tail  and  pointed  ears,  prob- 
ably arboreal  in  its  habits,  and  an  inhabitant 

1  "  Footprints  of  the  Creator,"  p.  226. 
•  "  Descent  of  Man  : "  vol.  i.  p.  235. 


206  Scientific  Sophisms. 

of  the  old  world." l  And  again  :— "  The  early 
progenitors  of  man  were  no  doubt  well  covered 
with  hair,  both  sexes  having  beards ;  their 
ears  were  pointed  and  capable  of  movement ; 
and  their  bodies  were  provided  with  a  tail, 
having  the  proper  muscles.  .  .  .  The 
males  were  provided  with  great  canine  teeth, 
which  served  them  as  formidable  weapons."  2 

Then  as  to  the  Ape's  descent  from  his 
Ascidian  ancestor : — 

"  The  most  ancient  progenitors  in  the 
Kingdom  of  the  Vertebrata  at  which  we  are 
able  to  obtain  an  obscure  glance,  apparently 
consisted  of  a  group  of  marine  animals,  re- 
sembling the  larvae  of  existing  Ascidians. 
These  animals  probably  gave  rise  to  a  group 
of  fishes,  as  lowly  organized  as  the  Lancelet ; 
and  from  these  the  Ganoids  and  other  fishes 
like  the  Lepidosiren,  must  have  been  devel- 
oped. From  such  fish  a  very  small  advance 
would  carry  us  on  to  the  amphibians.  .  .  . 
Birds  and  reptiles  were  once  intimately  con- 
nected together,  and  the  Monotremata  now, 
in  a  slight  degree,  connect  mammals  with 
reptiles.  But  no  one  can  at  present,  say  by 
what  line  of  descent  the  three  higher  and 

1  "  Descent  of  Man,"  vol.  ii.  p.  389. 
*  Ibid.,  vol.  i.  pp.  206,  207. 


Apes.  207 

related  classes,  namely,  mammals,  birds,  and 
reptiles,  were  derived  from  either  of  the  two 
lower  vertebrate  classes,  namely  amphibians 
and  fishes.  In  the  class  of  mammals  the  steps 
are  not  difficult  to  conceive  which  led  from  the 
ancient  Monotremata  to  the  ancient  Marsu- 
pials ;  and  from  these  to  the  early  progenitors 
of  the  placental  animals.  We  may  thus  ascend 
to  the  Lemuridae ;  and  the  interval  is  not 
wide  from  these  to  the  Simiadae.  The  Simi- 
adae  then  branched  off  into  two  great  stems, 
the  New  World  and  the  Old  World  monkeys  ; 
and  from  the  latter,  at  a  remote  period,  man, 
the  wonder  and  glory  of  the  universe,  pro- 
ceeded. .  .  .  If  a  single  link  in  this  chain 
had  never  existed,  man  would  not  have  been 
what  he  now  is.  Unless  we  wilfully  close 
our  eyes,  we  may,  with  our  present  know- 
ledge, approximately  recognize  our  parentage, 
nor  need  we  feel  ashamed  of  it"1 

"  If  a  single  link  in  this  chain  had  never 
existed " !  Why,  even  as  Mr.  Darwin  has 
imagined  it,  it  is  not  a  chain  at  all.  There 
is  no  continuity  of  concatenation.  Even  its 
very  first  link  has  to  be  imagined.  And 
even  when  it  has  been  imagined  it  is  found 
to  consist — not  really,  not  demonstrably,  but 
1  "  Descent  of  Man,"  voL  i.  pp.  212,  213. 

P 


208  Scientific  Sophisms. 

only — "  apparently "  "  of  a  group  of  marine 
animals."  Of  this  group  we  have  no  other 
view  than  a  mere  "  glance," — "  an  obscure 
glance."  But  this  first  link,  even  when  on  the 
strength  of  an  obscure  glance  it  has  been 
pronounced  "apparent,"  is  still  not  even 
"  apparently  "  connected  with  any  other.  The 
connection  required  by  the  hypothesis — very 
far  indeed  from  being  "  apparent " — is  "  prob- 
able "  only.  "  These  animals  probably  gave 
rise  to  a  group  of  fishes,"  "  and  from  these 
the  Ganoids  and  other  fishes  must  have  been 
developed."  But  why  "  must  have  been  ? " 
there  is  no  sort  of  necessity  except  that  which 
is  due  to  the  exigencies  of  the  theory.  "  From 
such  fish  a  very  small  advance  would  carry 
us  on  to  the  amphibians."  Possibly :  but  this 
very  small  advance  is  not  to  be  had.  Mr. 
Darwin's  argument  is  made  by  himself  to 
depend  on  the  strength  of  his  "  chain " ;  and 
the  strength  of  his  chain  is  precisely  that  of 
its  weakest  link.  But  before  all  questions  of 
strength  there  must  be  the  prior  fact  of  ex- 
istence. Chains  are  made  not  by  an  aggrega- 
tion of  detached  links,  but  by  their  continuity 
of  concatenation.  "A  very  small  advance," — 
possibly :  but  to  advance  at  all  without  the 
aid  of  the  missing  link,  is  to  abandon  the 


Apes.  209 

pretence  of  a  chain.  Yet  this  is  precisely 
Mr.  Darwin's  chosen  mode  of  progression. 

"  In  the  class  of  mammals,"  he  tells  us,  "  the 
steps  are  not  difficult  to  conceive  which  led 
from  the  ancient  Monotremata  to  the  ancient 
Marsupials  ;  and  from  these  to  the  early  progeni- 
tors of'  the  placental  animals."  In  this  theory 
of  Ascensive  Development  "  the  steps  "  are  every 
thing.  But  where  are  they  ?  Their  discovery  is 
hopeless,  their  demonstration  is  impossible  ;  no 
matter  :  they  "  are  not  difficult  to  conceive  "  ! 

"We  may  thus  ascend  to  the  Lemuridae." 
"  Thus "  :  by  steps  which  cannot  be  found ; 
steps  on  which  no  one  ever  stood ;  but  still, 
steps  which  Mr.  Darwin  finds  it  "not  difficult 
to  conceive."  And  then:  "from  these  to  the 
Simiadae"  "the  interval  is  not  wide."  So  be 
it :  but  however  it  be,  it  is  nothing  to  the 
purpose.  That  which  is  to  the  purpose  is  not 
the  width,  but  the  fact  of  "  the  interval."  And 
this  fact  of  "  the  interval "  is  attested  by  Mr. 
Darwin  himself.  And  with  this  "  interval  "  be- 
fore him,  and  these  aerial  "  steps,"  and  these 
appearances  which  are  "  apparent "  only  to 
"  an  obscure  glance,"  Mr.  Darwin  can  so  far 
overlook  the  obvious  and  actual,  in  his  zeal 
for  the  ideal  and  imaginary,  as  to  say — "  If 
a  single  link  in  this  chain  had  never  existed  1  " 


2io  Scientific  Sophisms. 

,  i  Even  this  is  not  the  worst  For,  he  adds 
"  Unless  we  wilfully  close  our  eyes,  we  may, 
with  our  present  knowledge,  approximately 
recognize  our  parentage."  "  Our  present  know- 
ledge "  !  Why,  that  is  merely  our  present  want 
of  knowledge  ;  for  it  is  he  himself  who  tells 
us  that  "  no  one  can  at  present  say  by  what 
line  of  descent  the  mammals,"  i.e.,  ourselves 
"were  derived." 

In  the  hands  of  Prof.  Huxley,  the  specious 
plausibilities  of  Mr.  Darwin  commonly  assume 
the  form  of  dogmatic  affirmations ;  but  in  re- 
lation to  this  matter  of  the  Descent  of  Man 
from  the  Ape,  the  cautious  and  conditional 
generalisations  of  Mr.  Huxley  furnish  fresh 
proof,  if  fresh  proof  be  needed,  of  the  thoroughly 
conjectural  character  of  Mr.  Darwin's  theory. 

"  If,"  says  the  learned  Professor,  "  IF  Man 
be  separated  by  no  greater  structural  barrier 
from  the  brutes  than  they  are  from  one  an- 
other— THEN  it  SEEMS  to  follow  that  IF  any 
process  of  physical  causation  can  be  discovered 
by  which  the  genera  and  families  of  ordinary 
animals  have  been  produced,  that  process  of 
causation  is  amply  sufficient  to  account  for 
the  origin  of  Man.  In  other  words,  IF  it 
could  be  shown  that  the  Marmosets,  for  ex- 
ample, have  arisen  by  gradual  modification  of 


Apes.  2 1 1 

the  ordinary  Platyrhini,  or  that  both  Marmosets 
and  Platyrhini  are  modified  ramifications  of  a 
primitive  stock — THEN,  there  would  be  no 
rational  ground  for  doubting  that  man  MIGHT 
have  originated,  in  the  one  case,  by  the  gra- 
dual modification  of  a  man-like  ape ;  or,  in 
the  other  case,  as  a  ramification  of  the  same 
primitive  stock  as  those  apes."  l 

Widely  different  from  Mr.  Darwin's  "  chain," 
with  every  "  single  link  "  in  its  place,  this  re- 
iterated relation  of  "If"  and  "then"  ;  with  its 
conditional  sequence  of  what,  after  all,  only 
"seems  to  follow";  and  its  ultimate  conclusion 
that  "  Man  might  have  originated,"  either  in  a 
given  mode,  or  in  some  other  mode  not  given. 

Mr.  Huxley  adds,  "  I  adopt  Mr.  Darwin's 
hypothesis  therefore,  subject  to  the  production 
of  proof  that  physiological  species  MAY  be  pro- 
duced by  selective  breeding."  z  But  this  desid- 
erated "proof"  is  precisely  that  very  thing  con- 
cerning which  both  Mr.  Huxley  and  Mr.  Darwin 
are  agreed  that  it  is  not  producible.  Flourens, 
and  Cuvier,  Buffon,  and  De  Candolle,  Mviller, 
and  John  Hunter,  Lyell,  and  Lawrence,  Agas- 
siz,  and  Pouchet,  though  they  know  nothing  of 

1  Huxley's  u  Evidence  as  to  Man's  Place  in  Nature." 
Williams  &  Norgate  :  1863.     Pp.  105,  106. 
1  Ibid.,  p.  1 08. 


212  Scientific  Sophisms. 

the*  transmutations  hypothecated  by  Mr.  Dar- 
win, yet  they  do  know  the  "  insurmountable 
barrier  "  that  "  Nature  "  has  erected  against  the 
change  of  species.1  They  know  that  the  Lin- 
naean  maxim — Species  naturae  opus — rests  on 
foundations  too  broad  and  deep  to  be  shaken  by 
casual  excess  o.  statement,  or  semblance  of  per- 
plexity. While  mere  varieties,  as  superficial 
excursions  from  type  are  technically  termed,  are 
never  mutually  infertile,  animals  of  different 
species  are  physiologically  contrasted  with  such 
varieties  by  reciprocal  repugnance  or  punitive 
sterility.  The  mastiff  and  the  terrier  freely 
inter-breed  ;  not  so  the  horse  and  the  ass  :  the 
mongrel  dog  is  a  parent ;  the  hybrid  mule  is 
not  And  the  hybrid  individual  perishes, — at 
genus  immortale  manet.  For  it  is  a  funda- 
mental axiom  that  animals  incapable  of  common 
off-spring  cannot  have  sprung  from  common 
ancestors. 

On  this  head  therefore,  the  evidence  against 
Mr.  Darwin's  theory  of  the  Origin  of  Species  is 
overwhelming  ;  and  no  one  knows  this  better 
than  Mr.  Huxley  himself.  When  therefore  he 
tells  us  that  he  adopts  Mr.  Darwin's  hypothesis, 
"  subject  to  the  production  of  proof  that  physio- 
logical species  may  be  produced  by  selective 
1  Vide  Appendix,  Note  C 


Apes.  2 1 3 

breeding,"  we  are  to  understand  by  this  that  he 
does  not  adopt  it  at  all.  For,  as  he  is  careful  to 
add,  "  Our  acceptance  of  the  Darwinian  hypo- 
thesis must  be  provisional  so  long  as  one  link  in 
the  chain  of  evidence  is  wanting  ;  and  so  long 
as  all  the  animals  and  plants  certainly  produced 
by  selective  breeding  from  a  common  stock 
are  fertile  with  one  another,  that  link  will  be 
wanting."  l 

So  long  then  as  Nature  remains  what  it  is, 
"that  link," — Mr.  Huxley  himself  being  witness, 
— will  still  be  "  wanting."  And  yet  Mr.  Darwin 
can  say — "  If  a  single  link  in  this  chain  had 
never  existed " !  According  to  Mr.  Darwin, 
Man  is  what  he  is,  because  he  has  been  inextric- 
ably linked  with  the  lower  animals — with  the 
"  ascidian,"  with  the  "  primordial  form  "  by  a 
chain  of  which  no  "  single  link  "  is  wanting.  Ac- 
cording to  Mr.  Huxley,  Man  is  what  he  is,  not- 
withstanding the  chasms  in  Mr.  Darwin's  imag- 
inary chain  :  chasms  which .  Mr.  Darwin  cannot 
cross  except  by  "  steps  "  imaginary  and  aerial, 
which  it  is  "  not  difficult  to  conceive  "  ;  but  still 
"steps"  which  have  no  corresponding  "links"  in 
the  world  of  physiology  and  fact ;  steps  which 
cannot  be  taken  at  all — not  even  in  imagination 
— without  reversing  the  Constitution  and  Course 
1  u  Man's  Place  in  Nature,"  p.  107. 


214  Scientific  Sophisms. 

t 

of  Nature.  For  Nature  knows  nothing  of  "a 
group  of  animals  having  all  the  characters  ex- 
hibited by  species  "  having  "  ever  been  origin- 
ated by  selection,  whether  artificial  or  natural,"1 

But  although  such  groups  are  utterly  unknown 
to  Nature  they  are  absolutely  necessary  to  the 
theory  of  Ascensive  Development.  Since  there- 
fore they  cannot  be  found,  they  must  be 
"  conceived " ;  and  to  conceive  them  is,  in  Mr. 
Darwin's  opinion,  "  not  difficult  "  :  ("  Facilis 
descensus "  /)  and  Prof.  Haeckel  has  conceived 
them  accordingly.  Again  and  again  he  tells 
us  that  Monera,  worms,  and  fishes,  were  "our 
ancestors."  We  are  reminded  that  when  we 
speak  of  "  poor  worms,"  or  "  miserable  worms," 
we  should  remember  that  "WITHOUT  ANY 
DOUBT  a  long  series  of  extinct  worms  were  our 
direct  ancestors."  8  He  recognizes  twenty-two 
distinct  stages  in  our  evolution  ;  eight  of  which 
belong  to  the  invertebrate,  and  fourteen  to  the 
vertebrate  sub-kingdom. 

Not  however  until  he  reaches  the  Sixth  of 
these  imaginary  stages  does  he  arrive  at  the 
earliest  worms,  the  ArchelmintJies,  now  repre- 
sented by  the  Turbellaria.  In  order  to  arrive 
at  these  "  earliest  worms,"  he  hypothecates  as 

1  "  Lay  Sermons,"  p.  295. 
*  "  Anthropogenic,"  p.  399, 


Apes.  215 

number  Five,  the  Gastrcea  (Urdarmthiere)  a 
class  of  animals  purely  imaginary.  They  are 
placed  here  because  required  as  ancestors  for 
the  Gastrula,  itself  an  imaginary  order,  derived 
from  embryological  exigencies. 

No.  8  is  another  imaginary  type,  called  by 
Haeckel  Chordonia,  because  they  "developed 
themselves  from  the  Annelida,  by  the  formation 
of  a  spinal  marrow  and  a  chorda  dorsalis  "  ! x  It 
is  well  known  that  between  the  Invertebrata 
and  the  Vertebrata  there  is  no  transition  form. 
It  is  also  known  (by  Mr.  Darwin)  that,  by 
means  of  the  Ascidians,  we  are  supposed  to 
"have  at  last  gained  a  clue  to  the  source  whence 
the  Vertebrata  have  been  derived."  z  But  as  to 
that  "  group  of  marine  animals  resembling  the 
larvae  of  existing  Ascidians,"  which  were  our 
"most  ancient  progenitors  in  the  kingdom  of 
the  Vertebrata "  : 8 — who  they  were,  or  what, 
or  whence,  is  known  to  no  one  but  Professor 
Haeckel !  True,  even  he  does  not  profess  to 
have  any  producible  evidence  that  such  animals 
ever  existed ;  they  are  destitute  of  any  single 
living  representative  ;  there  is  no  fossil  evidence 
of  their  former  existence  ;  their  sole  raison  d'etre 

1  "  Natiirliche  Schopfungsgeschichte,"  p.  583. 
*  "Descent  of  Man,"  vol.  i.  p.  205. 
»  Ibid. 


216  Scientific  Sophisms. 

is,  that  they  are  required  by  the  hypothesis. 
In  Haeckel's  Stammbaum  here  they  are  accord- 
ingly— as  veritable  as  Falstaff's  men  in  buckram 
— with  no  extinct  or  living  representatives,  but 
being,  for  all  that,  "  undoubtedly  "  the  progen- 
itors of  all  the  Vertebrata,  through  the  Ascid- 
ians.  Not  that  they  were  always  so,  however. 
Far  from  it.  But — anticipating  the  advice  of 
Mrs.  Louisa  Chick — they  knew  how  much  de- 
pended on  them,  and  they  "  made  an  effort." l 
It  succeeded  beyond  all  expectation.  They 
"  developed  THEMSELVES  "  !  How  ?  By  the 
simplest  possible  process,  in  the  easiest  possible 
manner.  Nothing  more  than — "  the  formation 
of  a  spinal  marrow  and  a  chorda  dorsalis  "  ! 

(14),  The  Sozura,  is  an  order  of  Amphibia 
interpolated  "  because  required  as  a  necessary 
transition  stage  between  the  true  Amphibia," 
(13,)  and  (15)  The  Protamniota,  or  general 
stem  of  the  mammalia,  reptiles,  and  birds. 
"  What  the  Protamniota  were  like,"  says  Prof. 
Huxley,  "I  do  not  suppose  any  one  is  in  a 
position  to  say."  2  And  yet  we  are  told  that 

1  "  It's  necessary  for  you  to  make  an  effort,  and  per 
haps  a  very  great  and  painful  effort  which  you  are  not 
disposed  to  make  ;  but  this  is  a  world  of  effort  you  know, 
Fanny,  and  we  must  never  yield,  when  so  much  depends 
upon  us.     Come  !     Try  !  "—Dombey  &>  Son,  ch.  i. 

2  "  Critiques  and  Addresses,"  p.  318. 


Apes.  34  f 

"  the  Protamniota  split  up  into  two  stems,  one 
that  of  the  Mammalia,  the  other  common  to 
Reptilia  and  Aves"1  And  they  are  "  proved  " 
to  have  exjsted  ( — although  no  one  knows  what 
they  were  like — )  because  they  were  the  neces- 
sary precursors  of 

(16),  The  Pro-mammalia,  the  earliest  pro- 
genitors  of  all  the  Mammalia.  And  these  were 
followed  by  (17,)  Marsupialia,  or  Kangaroos. 
"  But,"  says  Prof.  Huxley,  "  the  existing  Opos- 
sums and  Kangaroos  are  certainly  extremely 
modified  and  remote  from  their  ancestors  the 
'  Prodidelphiaj  of  which  we  have  not,  at  pre- 
sent, the  slightest  knowledge.  The  mode  of 
origin  of  the  Monodelphia  from  these  is  a. very 
difficult  problem,  for  the  most  part  left  open 
by  Professor  Haeckel." 8  Observe  :  Of  these 
Prodidelphia  "  we  have  not,  at  present,  the 
slightest  knowledge."  And  yet  this  knowledge 
we  "  certainly  "  have  :  First,  that  they  are  the 
"  ancestors  "  of  "  the  existing  Opossums  and 
Kangaroos  "  ;  and  Second,  that  these  Opossums 
and  Kangaroos  "  are  certainly  extremely  modi- 
fied and  remote  from  their  ancestors  the  Prodi- 
ddphia"  No  wonder  that  "  the  mode  of  origin 
of  the  Monodelphia  from  these  is  a  very  difficult 

1  "  Critiques  and  Addresses,"  p.  317. 
*  Ibid.,  p.  318. 


218  Scientific  Sophisms. 

problem."  No  wonder-either  that  though  "  tke 
phylum  of  the  Vertebrata  is  the  most  interest- 
ing of  all,  and  is  admirably  discussed  by  Prof. 
Haeckel," l  still  it  certainly  does  include  "  a  few 
points  which  seem,"  even  to  Prof.  Huxley,  "  to 
be  open  to  discussion."  8 

And  now  we  have  reached  the  beginning  of 
the  end.  For  (18)  are  the  Prosimice,  or  half- 
apes$  as  the  indris  and  loris.  And  from  these, 
through  (19,)  the  Menocerca,  or  tailed  apes,  we 
reach,  at  last,  (20,)  the  Anthropoides,  or  man-like 
apes,  represented  by  the  modern  orang,  gibbon, 
gorilla,  and  chimpanzee.  Not  amongst  these 
however  are  we  to  look  for  "  the  direct  ances- 
tors of  man,  but  amongst  the  unknown  extinct 
apes  of  the  Miocene."  The  Pithecanthropi  (21), 
or  dumb  ape-men,  come  next ;  an  unknown 
race — the  nearest  modern  representatives  of 
which  are  cretins  and  idiots.  s  They  must  Jiave 
existed,  in  order  to  furnish  means  of  transition 
to  the  final  stage  (thus  far !)  i.e.,  (22)  the 
Homines,  or  true  men,  who  "  developed  them- 
selves "  from  their  imaginary  fathers  of  the  pre- 
ceding class,  "  by  a  gradual  conversion  of  brute 
bowlings  into  articulate  speech." 

1  "Critiques  and  Addresses,"  p.  317. 

»  Ibid. 

1  "  Natiirliche  Schopfungsgeschichte,"  p.  59*. 


Apes.  2 1 9 

Thus  then,  at  last,  we  reach  the  goal  :— 
"  There  was  an  Ape." l  There  "  must  have  been? 
or  there  could  not  have  been  a  man.3  The 
exigency  is  urgent,  and  the  affirmation  easy.  It 
is  only  when  we  proceed  to  particulars  that 
difficulties  present  themselves.  Where  was  this 
Ape  ?  And  when  ?  And  what  ?  No  man  can 
tell. 

Haeckel  emphatically  protests  against  the 
notion  that  the  modern  anthropoid  apes  can  be 
regarded  as  our  direct  progenitors.  "  Our  ape- 
like ancestors,"  he  says,  "  are  long  since  extinct. 
Perchance  their  fossil  remains  may  some  time 
be  found  in  the  tertiary  deposits  of  Southern 
Asia  or  Africa.  They  must  nevertheless  be 
ranked  amongst  the  tailless  catarhine  anthro- 
poid apes."  3 

Mr.  Darwin  includes  Europe  in  the  field  which 
has  been  so  vainly  searched  for  this  missing 
link.  "  It  is  probable,"  he  tells  us,  "  that  Africa 
was  formerly  inhabited  by  extinct  apes,  closely 
allied  to  the  gorilla  and  chimpanzee ;  and  as 
these  two  species  are  now  man's  nearest  allies, 
it  is  somewhat  more  probable  that  our  early 
progenitors  lived  on  the  African  continent  than 

1  Vide  Appendix,  Note  D. 

«  Ibid.,  Note  E. 

1  "  Natiirliche  SchSpfungsgeschichte,"  p.  577. 


220  Scientific  Sophisms. 

elsewhere.  But  it  is  useless  to  speculate  on  this 
subject,  for  an  ape  nearly  as  large  as  a  man 
.  .  .  existed  in  Europe  during  the  Upper 
Miocene  period  ;  and  since  so  remote  a  period 
the  earth  has  certainly  undergone  many  great 
revolutions,  and  there  has  been  ample  time  for 
migration  on  the  largest  scale." l  Man's  pro- 
genitors therefore,  like  this  ape,  may  have  been 
Europeans,  yet  Europe,  no  less  than  Africa  or 
Asia,  has  hitherto  utterly  failed  to  furnish  any 
fossil  remains,  either  of  the  immediate,  or  of  the 
remote,  progenitors  of  man. 

"The  fossil  remains  of  man  hitherto  dis- 
covered," says  Prof.  Huxley,  "  do  not  seem  to 
me  to  take  us  appreciably  nearer  to  that  lower 
pithecoid  form,  by  the  modification  of  which 
he  has,  probably,  become  what  he  is.  ... 
Where  then  must  we  look  for  primeval  man  ? 
Was  the  oldest  Homo  sapiens  pliocene,  or 
miocene,  or  yet  more  ancient  ?  In  still  older 
strata  do  the  fossilized  bones  of  an  ape  more 
anthropoid,  or  a  man  more  pithecoid  than  any 
yet  known  await  the  researches  of  some  un- 
born palaeontologist  ?  Time  will  show." 

So  be  it :  dies  declarabit.  But,  meantime  this 
doctrine  of  man's  derivation  from  an  unknown 
ape,  in  an  undiscovered  continent,  rests— by  the 
1  "  Descent  of  Man,"  vol.  i.  p.  199. 


Apes.  221 

admissions  of  its  advocates — not  on  knowledge, 
but  on  the  want  of  knowledge.  Absolutely 
powerless  to  derive  man  from  the  ape,  it  is  not 
less  powerless  to  derive  the  cardinal  ape  from 
the  primordial  form.  And  yet  it  is  in  the  name 
of  Science  that  we  are  presented  with  this 
paraded  pedantry  of  Nescience,  and  are  asked 
to  believe  that  "  IN  THE  DIM  OBSCURITY  of  the 
Past,  we  can  SEE  " l  the  unreal  nonentities,  the 
airy  nothings,  required  by  the  "theoretic  con- 
ception," as  they  "  must  have  "  existed — "  once 
upon  a  time  "  ! a 

1  "  Descent  of  Man,"  vol.  ii.  p.  389. 
*  Vide  Appendix,  Note  F. 


CHAPTER   XII. 

MEN. 

"THE  question  of  questions  for  mankind,"  says 
Prof.  Huxley,  "  the  problem  which  underlies  all 
others,  and  is  more  deeply  interesting  than  any 
other — is  the  ascertainment  of  the  place  which 
Man  occupies  in  nature,  and  of  his  relations  to 
the  universe  of  things."1  For  the  most  part 
indeed,  men  are  unreflecting  as  well  as  unin- 
quiring ;  "  But  in  every  age,  one  or  two  restless 
spirits,  blessed  with  that  constructive  genius 
which  can  only  build  on  a  secure  foundation,"  * 
have  adopted  sound  principles,  and  proceeded 
by  sure  methods,  such  as  those  which  have  now 
led  the  Professor  to  perceive  that  "  though  the 
quaint  forms  of  Centaurs  and  Satyrs  have  an 
existence  only  in  the  realms  of  art,  creatures 
approaching  man  more  nearly  than  they  in 
essential  structure,  and  yet  as  thoroughly 
brutal  as  the  goat's  or  horse's  half  of  the 

1  "  Evidence  as  to  Man's  Place  in  Nature,"  p.  57. 
1  Ibid. 


Scientific  Sophisms.  223 

mythical  compound,  are  now  not  only  known 
but  notorious."  1 

Of  these  "creatures  approaching  man  in 
essential  structure,"  yet  "  thoroughly  brutal," 
the  gorilla  was  once  supposed  to  be  the  chief. 
But  the  day  of  De  Chaillu  is  over  ;  "  because,  in 
my  opinion,  so  long  as  his  narrative  remains  in 
its  present  state  of  unexplained  and  apparently 
inexplicable  confusion,  it  has  no  claim  to 
original  authority  respecting  any  subject  what- 
soever. It  may  be  truth,  but  it  is  not 
evidence."  8 

The  comforting  opinion  that  we  had,  as  men, 
a  cerebral  distinction,  is  also  now  (alas !)  no 
more.  For  we  are  now  assured  by  Prof. 
Huxley,  in  direct  contradiction  to  the  reiterated 
declarations  of  Prof.  Owen,  that  "  so  far  from 
the  posterior  lobe,  the  posterior  cornu,  and  the 
hippocampus  minor  being  structures  peculiar  to 
and  characteristic  of  man,  as  they  have  been 
over  and  over  again  asserted  to  be,  even  after 
the  publication  of  the  clearest  demonstration  of 
the  reverse,  it  is  precisely  these  structures  which 
are  the  most  marked  cerebral  characters  com- 
mon to  man  with  the  apes.  They  are  amongst 
the  most  distinctly  Simian  peculiarities  which 

1  "  Man's  Place  in  Nature,"  p.  I, 
»  Ibid,,  p.  54. 


2  24  Men. 

the  human  organism  exhibits."  Thus,  then,  it 
appears  that  while  Owen  and  Httxley  differ, 
apes  and  men  do  not  It  is  an  unfortunate 
circumstance  that  the  more  we  are  developed 
from  apes,  the  more  we  differ  from  each  other, 

But  are  we  then  *'  developed  from  apes  "  after 
all  ?  Is  this  so  .certain  ?  This  "  question  of 
questions  for  mankind  " — how  shall  we  answer  it? 
Shall  we  accept  the  dictum  of  Prof.  Huxley,  and 
say  that  "  man  is  in  substance  and  in  structure 
one  with  the  brutes  "  ?  Or  shall  we  pronounce 
that  dictum  a  mere  "  theoretic  conception," 
"  unverified  by  observation  and  experiment "  ? 
In  either  case,  what  are  the  facts  ? 

1.  And  first,  as  to  cerebral  structure. 

"  It  is  dear,"  says  Prof.  Huxley,  "  that  man 
differs  less  from  the  chimpanzee  or  the  orang 
than  these  do  even  from  the  monkeys  ;  and  that 
the  difference  between  the  brains  of  the  chim- 
panzee and  of  man  is  almost  insignificant,  when 
compared  with  that  between  the  chimpanzee 
brain  and  that  of  a  lemur." 

2.  As   to   cerebral  weight,   however,   on   the 
other  hand,  "  It  must  not  be  overlooked  that 
tbere  is  a  very  striking   difference  in   absolute 
mass   and  weight  between   the   lowest   human 
binin  and  that  of  the  highest  ape,  a  difference 
which  is  all  the  more  remarkable  when  we  recol- 


Scientific  Sophisms.  225 

lect  that  a  full-grown  Gorilla  is  probably  pretty 
nearly  twice  as  heavy  as  a  Bosjesman,  or  as 
many  an  European  woman."  "  It  may  be 
doubted,"  adds  the  Professor,  "  whether  a 
healthy  human  adult  brain  ever  weighed  less 
than  31  or  32  ounces,  or  that  the  heaviest 
Gorilla  brain  has  exceeded  20  ounces." x 

3.  "  This  is  a  very  noteworthy  circumstance, 
and  doubtless  will  one  day  help  to  furnish  an 
explanation  of  the  great  gulf  which  intervenes 
between  the  lowest  man  and  the  highest  ape  in 
intellectual  power,  but  it  has  little  systematic 
value "    [Why  ?]    "  for  the  simple  reason    that 
.     .     .     Regarded  systematically,  the   cerebral 
differences  of  man  and  apes  are  not  of  more 
than  generic  value,  his  Family  distinction  resting 
chiefly  on  his  dentition,  his  pelvis,  and  his  lower 
limbs."  * 

4.  On  this  latter  topic,  however,  Mr.  Huxley 
had  previously  said,  "  The  pelvis,  or  bony  girdle 
of  the  hips,  of  man  is  a  strikingly  human  part  of 
his  organization."  3      Adding,  "  But  now  let  us 
turn  to  a  nobler  and  more  characteristic  organ — 
that  by  which  the  human  frame  seems  to  be, 
and  indeed  is,  so  strangely  distinguished  from 

1  "  Man's  Place  in  Nature,"  pi  102. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  103. 

•  Ibid.,  p.  76. 


226  Men. 

.  all  others — I  mean  the  skull."  And  then,  after 
giving  the  cubical  capacity  of  the  smallest 
human  cranium,  and  of  "  the  most  capacious 
Gorilla  skull  yet  measured,"  he  says,  "  Let  us 
assume,  lor  simplicity's  sake,  that  the  lowest 
man's  skull  has  twice  the  capacity  of  that  of  the 
highest  Gorilla."  l 

5.  The  sum  o*  the  statements  already  quoted, 
then,  is  this  :— The  "  Family  distinction  "  of  the 
genus  Homo  is  to  be  ,iound  not  in  his  higher,  but 
in  his  lower,  qualities  ;   "resting  chiefly,"  not  on 
the  size  of  his  skull,  nor  on  the  weight  of  his 
brain,  but  "  on  his  dentition,  his  pelvis,  and  his 
lower  limbs."     And  yet,  notwithstanding  this, 

6.  "  That  by  which  the  human   frame  is  so 
strongly  distinguished  from  all  others  "  is  not 
the  baser  structure,  but  the  nobler  substance ; 
not  his  lower  limbs,  but   "a  nobler  and  more 
characteristic  organ     .     .     .     the  skull." 

7.  Prof.  Huxley  need  not  think  it  strange  if, 
in  despair  of  reconciling  the  conflicting  members 
of  this  duplex  thesis — that  Man's  "  family  dis- 
tinction "  is  not  cranial,  and  yet  that  by  which 
he  is  "so  strongly  distinguished  from  all  others" 
is  cranial ;  that   "  the  great  gulf  in  intellectual 
power  which  intervenes  between  the  lowest  man 
and  the  highest  ape  "  is  of  little  moment,  and 

1  "  Man's  Place  in  Nature,"  p.  77. 


Scientific  Sophisms. 

yet  that  the  organ  which  indicates  that  gulf  is 
his  "  nobler  and  more  characteristic  organ  ;— 
some  readers  should  relegate  it  to  that  category 
in  which  he  himself  has  placed  a  dictum  of 
Prof.  Owen's,  characterizing  it  as  a  "quci-qu£- 
versal  proposition  .  .  .  which  may  be  read 
backwards,  forwards,  or  sideways,  with  exactly 
the  same  amount  of  signification."  l 

8.  But  "  qua-qua  versal "  as  it  is,  it  does  not 
stand  alone.  For  after  we  have  learned  that 
even  when  regarded  on  the  lowest  grounds,  "  the 
pelvis,  or  bony  girdle  of  the  hips,  of  man  is  a 
strikingly  hwnan  part  of  his  organization,"  and 
that  his  Brain  is  strikingly  human  in  a  much 
higher  degree,  since  it  is  his  Brain,  and  not  his 
pelvis,  which  is  "  to  furnish  an  explanation  of 
the  great  gulf  which  intervenes  between  the 
lowest  man  and  the  highest  ape  m  intellectual 
power ; "  we  are  told — as  if  to  neutralize  this 
concurrent  testimony  from  "structure"  and 
from  "substance," — that  "the  difference  in 
weight  of  brain  between  the  highest  and  lowest 
man  is  far  greater,  both  relatively  and  abso- 
lutely, than  that  between  the  lowest  man  and 
the  highest  ape."  And,  in  a  word,  "  whatever 
system  of  organs  be  studied,  the  comparison  of 
their  modifications  in  the  ape  series  leads  to  one 
1  Man's  Place  in  Nature,"  p.  106. 


2e8  Men. 

and  the  same  result — that  the  structural  differ- 
ences which  separate  man  from  the  gorilla  and 
the  chimpanzee,  are  not  so  great  as  those  which 
separate  the  gorilla  from  the  lower  apes." 

9.  Even  this  latest  dictum,  if  it  had  been 
allowed  to  stand  alone,  would  have  been  so  far 
definite  as  to  redeem  it  from  the  character  of 
"  qua-quei-versal."  But  it  is  not  thus  allowed. 
No  sooner  has  it  been  submissively  accepted ; 
no  sooner  have  we  brought  ourselves  with  due 
docility  to  admit  that  "  the  structural  differences 
between  man  and  even  the  highest  apes  are 
small  and  insignificant,"  than  Prof.  Huxley 
protests  he  has  been  misunderstood.  "  Let  me 
take  this  opportunity  then,"  says  he,  "  of  dis- 
tinctly asserting,  on  the  contrary,  that  they 
are  great  and  significant ;  that  every  bone  of  a 
Gorilla  bears  marks  by  which  it  might  be  dis- 
tinguished from  the  corresponding  bone  of  a 
man  ;  and  that  in  the  present  creation,  at  any 
rate,  no  intermediate  link  bridges  over  the  gap 
between  Homo  and  Troglodytes," 1 

IO.  This  would  be  conclusive,  if  only  it  were 
final.  But  ii  is  not  final.  It  is  neutralized  in 
the  next  sentence  but  one  : — "  Remember,  if  you 
will,  that  there  is  no  existing  link  between  man 
and  the  gorilla  ;  but  do  not  forget  that  there  is  a 
1  "  Man's  Place  in  Nature,"  p.  104. 


Scientific  Sophisms.  229 

no  less  sharp  line  of  demarcation,  a  no  less  com- 
plete absence  of  any  transitional  form,  between 
the  gorilla  and  the  orang,  or  the  orang  and  the 
gibbon.  I  say  not  less  sharp,  though  it  is  some- 
what narrower."  l 

II.  Can  anything  be  plainer  ?  Prof.  Huxley 
anticipates  the  result  "On  all  sides  I  shall, 
hear  the  cry — '  We  are  men  and  women,  not  a 
mere  better  sort  of  apes,  a  little  longer  in  the  legs 
more  compact  in  the  foot,  and  bigger  in  brain 
than  your  brutal  chimpanzees  and  gorillas. 
The  power  of  knowledge,  the  conscience  of  good 
and  evil,  the  pitiful  tenderness  of  human  affec- 
tions, raise  us  out  of  all  real  fellowship  with  the 
brutes,  however  closely  they  may  seem  to  ap- 
proximate us.' "  And  what  is  his  answer  to  the 
objurgation  he  thus  anticipates  ? 

Here  it  is: — "I  have  endeavoured  to  show  that 
no  absolute  structural  line  of  demarcation,  wider 
than  that  between  the  animals  which  im- 
mediately succeed  us  in  the  scale,  can  be  drawn 
between  the  animal  world  and  ourselves,  and  I 
may  add  the  expression  of  my  belief  that  the 
attempt  to  draw  a  psychical  distinction  is 
equally  futile,  and  that  even  the  highest  faculties 
of  feeling  and  of  intellect  begin  to  germinate  in 
lower  forms  of  life." 3 

1  M  Man's  Place  in  Nature."          *  Ibid.>  p.  109. 


210  Men. 


12.  Add  to  this  the  further  declaration  that 
*  our  reverence  for  the  ability  of  manhood  will 
not  be  lessened  by  the  knowledge  that  man  is,  in 
substance  and  in  structure,  one  with  the  brutes."1 
And   then   contrast  with  both  the  words  that 
follow.      First,  there  is  no  physical  distinction  : 
"no  absolute  structural   line    of  demarcation." 
Second,  there   is  no  psychical  distinction  :  for 
"  the  attempt  to  draw  a  psychical  distinction  is 
equally  futile."     And  third,  "  even  the  highest 
faculties  of  feeling  and   of  intellect   begin   to 
germinate  in  lower  forms  of  life."     And  yet,  the 
very  next  sentence  is  in  these  words  : — 

13.  "At   the  same    time    no    one    is    more 
strongly  convinced  than  I  am  of  the  vastness  of 
the  gulf  between  civilized  man  and  the  brutes  : 
or  is  more  certain  that  whether  from  them  or 
not,  he  is  assuredly  not  of  them." 2 

To  harmonize  discordant  and  conflicting  as- 
sertions like  these  would  be  not  merely  to  re- 
concile the  irreconcilable ;  it  would  be  to  show 
that  opposites  are  identical.  Yet  until  that  is 
done,  what  else  can  we  say  of  them  but  that 
which  their  author  has  already  said  so  wittily 
of  his  opponents  ?  They  are  merely  "  qua" -qui- 
versal  propositions  .  .  .  which  may  be 

1  "Man's  Place  in  Nature,"  p.  1 12. 
*  Ibid.,  p.  1 10. 


Scientific  Sophisms,  231 

read   backwards,    forwards,   or    sideways,   with 
exactly  the  same  amount  of  signification." 

14.  We   revert    then    to    our    first   enquiry: 
What  are  the  facts  ?     Prof.  Huxley's  facts  are 
opposed    to    his    conclusions.      When    he   has 
admitted  that  between  the  lowest  man  and  the 
highest  ape  there  is  a  general,  a  particular,  and  a 
wide  distinction  ;  a  distinction  which  has  left  its 
marks  on  "  every  bone  " ;  he  then  proceeds  to 
lay  great  stress  on  the  fact  that,  between  one 
family  of  man    and  another   the  difference    is 
greater  than  between  the  lowest  man  and  the 
highest  ape."  l     But  when  he  has  done  this,  he 
proceeds  in  each  case  to  show  that  there  is  a 
far   greater  difference  between   this  same  ape, 
and  the   apes   of  some  other  remaining   class. 
But  these  two   statements  furnish   the  import- 
ant corollary   that  "  there   is  the  same,   or  an 
analogous    kind    of    distinction     between    one 
family  of  man  and  another,  and  between  one 
family  of  ape  and  another."       The    idea  thus 
suggested   is    subversive    of   his    theory :   viz., 
that  the  families  of  men  are  sprung  from  one 
type,  and   the  families  of  apes  from   another; 
in  other  words,  there  is  a  generic  as  well  as  a 
specific  difference  between  men  and  apes." 

15.  Prof.  Huxley  apart,  it  is  allowed  on  all 

1  "  Man's  Place  in  Nature,"  p.  78. 


232  Men. 

hands  that  socially,  morally,  religiously,  and 
historically,  men  and  apes  are  generically  dis- 
tinct. But  this  distinction  as  matter  of  fact 
either  involves  a  generic  distinction  between 
the  physiological  structure  of  men  and  apes,  or 
it  does  not.  If  it  does,  then  Mr.  Huxley's 
theory  is  disproved  by  the  fact ;  and  man  is 
not  "  in  substance  and  in  structure  one  with  the 
brutes."  If  it  does  not,  then  "  the  cause  of  this 
distinction  must  be  looked  for  elsewhere,  and 
science  will  have  to  admit  that  in  man  there  is 
an  immaterial  element  which  physiology  cannot 
grasp,"  an  element  adequate  to  his  elevation 
at  a  height  so  immeasurably  above  the  rest  of 
the  animal  world. 

1 6.  Nor  is  it  to  be  forgotten  that,  even  by 
Prof.  Huxley  himself,  this  elevation  of  man 
above  the  ape  is  regarded  comparatively  as 
being  not  merely  "immeasurable,"  but  "prac- 
tically infinite."  "  Believing  as  I  do,  with 
Cuvier,"  he  says,  "  that  the  possession  of  articu- 
late speech  is  the  grand  distinctive  character 
of  man,"  ..."  the  primary  cause  of  the 
UN  MEASURABLE  and  practically  infinite  diver- 
gence of  the  Human  from  the  Simian  Stirps."  2 

By  universal  consent  then,  nothing   is  more 

1  "  Man's  Place  in  Nature,"  p.  103  n. 
*  Ibid.y  p.  103  «. 


Scientific  Sophisms.  233 

certain  than  that  Man  is  chiefly  characterized 
by  those  psychical  distinctions  which  in  such 
treatises  as  that  of  Prof.  Huxley's  now  cited,- are 
either  left  entirely  out  of  view,  or  dismissed  in 
a  passing  sentence.  "  Conscience,  remorse,  am- 
bition, sense  of  responsibility,  improvableness 
of  reason,  immense  advances  in  knowledge, 
self-cultivation,  sesthetical  sensibilities — these 
and  other  qualities  of  the  Homo  sapiens,  not 
to  speak  of  religious  sentiments,  broadly  and 
plainly  distinguish  man  from  all  the  Simians 
and  Troglodytes.  Grant,  for  a  moment,  (what 
is  manifestly  inconsistent  with  the  previous 
statement,  that  '  the  structural  differences  be- 
tween man  and  the  highest  apes  are  great  and 
significant ')  that  man  is  one  in  substance  and 
structure  with  these  creatures  ;  grant  even  that 
their  instincts  simulate  our  reason  in  some 
remarkable  instances  ;  and  when  all  is  granted, 
the  vast  and  varied  differences  just  intimated 
remain  as  towering  distinctions.  To  these  is 
added  that  gift  of  articulate  speech  which, 
though  mechanically  organized,  imparts  su- 
preme value  to  them  all ;  which  makes  man  a 
communicative  being  ;  which  gives  to  a  lecturer, 
such  as  Professor  Huxley,  that  power  to  in- 
struct, amuse  and  illustrate,  by  which  he  is  raised 
immeasurably  above  the  cleverest  ape  that 


234  Men. 

ever  climbed  a  tree,  or  built  a  nest,  or  buried 
his  dead  companion  under  the  dried  leaves  of 
an  African  forest."  l 

17.  As  to  the  alleged  ancestry  of  Man  from 
the  brutes,  this,  then,  is  certain  :  "  that  whether 
from  them  or  not,  he  is  assuredly  not  of  them." 

But  is  he  "from  them "  ?  He  who  answers 
this  question  in  the  affirmative  affirms  what  he 
cannot  even  pretend  to  prove.  The  evidence, 
such  as  it  is,  in  every  particular,  and  in  the  most 
positive  terms,  endorses  the  direct  negative  of 
the  proposition  which  on  any  theory  of  Ascen- 
sive  Development  it  is  found  necessary  to  main- 
tain. It  is  Mr.  Darwin  himself  who  tells  us  of 
"  the  great  break  in  the  organic  chain  between 
man  and  his  nearest  allies,  which  cannot  be 
bridged  over  by  any  extinct  or  living  species."  3 
"The  fossil  remains  of  man  hitherto  discovered," 
says  Professor  Huxley,  "  do  not  seem  to  take  us 
appreciably  nearer  to  that  lower  pithecoid  form " 
from  which  it  is  conjectured — but  only  con- 
jectured— that  he  sprang.  It  is  nothing  less 
than  the  utter  destitution  of  evidence  in  support 
of  the  unverified  "  theoretic  conception "  that 
constrains  even  Professor  Huxley  to  ask,  "Where 
then  must  we  look  for  primaeval  man  ?  " 

1  The  Athencsum,  No.  1844,  p.  288. 
*  "  The  Descent  of  Man,"  vol.  i.  p.  200. 


Scientific  Sophisms.  235 

18.  "In  the  first  place,  it  is  manifest  that 
man,  the  apes,  and  the  half-apes  cannot  be 
arranged  in  a  single  ascending  series,  of  which 
man  is  the  term  and  culmination. 

"  We  may  indeed,  by  selecting  one  organ  or 
one  set  of  parts,  and  confining  our  attention 
to  it,  arrange  the  different  forms  in  a  more  or 
less  simple  manner.  But  if  all  the  organs  be 
taken  into  account,  the  cross  relations  and  inter- 
dependencies  become  in  the  highest  degree  com- 
plex and  difficult  to  unravel."  l  This  indeed  is 
generally  admitted,  but  still  the  theory  pro- 
pounded by  Mr.  Darwin,  and  widely  accepted, 
is  that  "the  resemblances  between  man  and 
apes  are  such  that  man  may  be  conceived  to 
have  descended  from  some  ancient  members  of 
the  broad-breastboned  group  of  apes,"  and  of 
all  existing  apes,  the  gorilla  is  regarded  as 
standing  towards  him  in  closer  relationship 
than  any  other. 

But  what  evidence  of  common  origin  is 
afforded  by  community  of  structure?  "The 
human  structural  characters  are  shared  by  so 
many  and  such  diverse  forms,  that  it  is  impos- 
sible to  arrange  even  groups  of  genera  in  a 
single  ascending  series  from  the  aye-aye  to  man 

1  "Lessons  from  Nature,"  p.  174.  By  Prof.  Mivart 
(Murray,  1876.) 


236  Men. 

(to  say  nothing  of  so  arranging  the  several 
single  genera),  if  all  the  structural  resemblances 
are  taken  into  account 

"  If  the  number  of  wrist-bones  be  deemed 
a  special  mark  of  affinity  between  the  gorilla, 
chimpanzee,  and  man,  why  are  we  not  to  con- 
sider it  also  a  special  mark  of  affinity  between 
the  indris  and  man  ?  That  it  should  be  so  con- 
sidered, however,  would  be  deemed  an  absurdity 
by  every  evolutionist. 

"  If  the  proportions  of  the  arms  speak  in 
favour  of  the  chimpanzee,  why  do  not  the 
proportions  of  the  legs  serve  to  promote  the 
rank- of  the  gibbons? 

"  If  the  obliquely-ridged  teeth  of  Simia  and 
Troglodytes  point  to  community  of  origin,  how 
can  we  deny  a  similar  community  of  origin,  as 
thus  estimated,  to  the  howling  monkeys  and 
galagos  ? 

"  The  liver  of  the  gibbons  proclaims  them 
almost  human  ;  that  of  the  gorilla  declares  him 
comparatively  brutal. 

"  The  ear-lobule  of  the  gorilla  makes  him  our 
cousin  ;  but  his  tongue  is  eloquent  in  his  own 
dispraise. 

"  The  slender  loris  from  amidst  the  half-apes, 
can  put  in  many  a  claim  to  be  our  shadow 
refracted,  as  it  were,  through  a  lemurine  prism. 

R 


Scientific  Sophisms.  237 

"  The  lower  American  apes  meet  us  with  what 
seems  'the  front  of  Jove  himself,'  compared 
with  the  gigantic,  but  low-browed  denizens  of 
tropical  Western  Africa. 

"  In  fact,  in  the  words  of  the  illustrious  Dutch 
naturalists,  Messrs.  Schroeder,  Van  der  Kolk, 
and  Vrolik,  the  lines  of  affinity  existing  between 
different  Primates  construct  rather  a  network 
than  a  ladder. 

"  It  is  indeed  a  tangled  web,  the  meshes  of 
which  no  naturalist  has  as  yet  unravelled  by 
the  aid  of  natural  selection.  Nay,  more,  these 
complex  affinities  form  such  a  net  for  the  use  of 
the  teleological  retiarius  as  it  would  be  difficult 
for  his  Lucretian  antagonist  to  evade,  even  with 
the  countless  turns  and  doublings  of  Darwinian 
evolutions."  1 

And  yet  we  are  told  by  Professor  Tyndall  * 
that  the  naturalist  whose  mind  is  "  most  deeply 
stored  with  the  choicest  materials  of  the  tele- 
ologist,';  rejects  teleology.  Does  he  then  effect 
his  escape  from  the  reticulations  of  the  complex^ 
affinities  now  specified  ?  By  no  means.  But 
he  refers  the  spontaneous  and  independent 
appearance  of  these  similar  structures  to 
"  atavism,"  and  "  reversion  ;  "  to  the  appearance 

1  Professor  Mivart,  ut  sup,)  pp.  174,175. 
*  «'  Belfast  Address." 


238  Men. 

that  is,  in  modern  descendants,  of  ancient  and 
sometimes  long-lost  structural  characters,  which 
are  supposed  to  have  formerly  existed  in 
ancestors  more  or  less  remote,  and  wholly 
hypothetical. 

But  if  this  were  true  :  "if  man  and  the  orang 
are  diverging  descendants  of  a  creature  with 
certain  cerebral  characters,  then  that  remote 
ancestor  must  also  have  had  the  wrist  of  the 
chimpanzee,  the  voice  of  a  long-armed  ape,  the 
blade-bone  of  the  gorilla,  the  chin  of  the  siam- 
ang,  the  skull-dome  of  an  American  ape,  the 
ischium  of  a  slender  loris,  the  whiskers  and 
beard  of  a  saki,  the  liver  and  stomach  of  the 
gibbons,  and  the  number  of  other  characters 
in  which  the  various  several  forms  of  higher 
or  lower  Primates  respectively  approximate  to 
man. 

"  But  to  assert  this  is  as  much  as  to  say  that 
low  down  in  the  scale  of  Primates  was  an  an- 
cestral form  so  like  man  that  it  might  well  be 
called  an  homunculus  ;  and  we  have  the  virtual 
"pre-existence  of  man's  body  supposed,  in  order 
to  account  for  the  actual  first  appearance  of 
that  body  as  we  know  it : — a  supposition  mani- 
festly absurd  if  put  forward  as  an  explanation."  * 

19.  Nor  is  it  an  insignificant  circumstance, 
1  M  Lessons  from  Nature,"  p.  176. 


Scientific  Sophisms.  239 

as  indicating  the  wholly  hypothetical  character 
of  the  ape  ancestry  thus  assigned  to  man,  that 
neither  on  the  earth  nor  under  the  earth  is  any 
trace  of  such  an  ancestry  discoverable.  The 
number  is  not  small  of  those  who  prefer  to 
search  the  record  of  the  rocks  for  "  Vestiges  " 
of  Creation  rather  than  for  Footprints  of  the 
Creator ;  but  no  vestige  of  man's  ascent  from 
the  ape  is  yet  producible.  In  default  therefore 
of  evidence  adducible  from  that  which  is,  we 
are  liberally  supplied  with  asseverations  as  to 
that  which  might,  or  "  must  have  been." 

There  must,  for  example,  have  been  "  a  series 
of  forms  graduating  insensibly  from  some  ape- 
like creature  to  man  as  he  now  exists."  l  Now 
of  the  series  thus  alleged,  every  single  member 
was  ex  hypotJiesi  superior  to  the  lower  forms 
from  which  he  sprang.  And  Mr.  Darwin's 
doctrine  affirms  "the  survival  of  the  fittest." 
But  while  the  half-apes  are  with  us  to  this  day 
the  half-men  are  nowhere.  The  ape-mothers 
that  •  found  themselves,  in  the  last  term  of  the 
series,  strangely  producing  men,  have  perished  ; 
while  the  monkeys,  unequal  to  the  production 
even  of  apes,  have  survived.  According  to  the 
hypothesis  the  fittest  should  survive  ;  according 
to  the  facts  the  fittest  have  perished. 

1  "  Descent  of  Man,"  vol.  i.  p.  235. 


240  Men. 

But  this  is  not  all.  Besides  this  imaginary 
"series  of  forms,"  the  theory  requires  further 
a  process  of  "  graduating  insensibly."  And  of 
this  process  there  is  not  only  no  proof,  but  the 
evidence,  such  as  it  is,  points  in  the  direction 
of  disproof.  It  is  Mr.  Darwin  himself  who  says, 
"  Breaks  incessantly  occur  in  all  parts  of  the 
series,  some  being  wide,  sharp,  and  defined, 
others  less  so  in  various  degrees  ;  as  between 
the  orang  and  its  nearest  allies — between  the 
Tarsius  and  the  other  Lemuridae."  The  "  intel- 
lectual figment "  is  in  evil  case  when  it  postu- 
lates a  process  of  graduation  so  gradual  as  to 
be  imperceptible,  yet  so  abrupt  as  to  exhibit 
"breaks  "  which  "  incessantly  occur  in  all  parts 
of  the  series,"  not  excluding  even  "  breaks " 
which  are  "  wide,  sharp,  and  defined."  And 
yet,  across  these  "  breaks,"  Mr.  Darwin's  theory, 
by  Mr.  Darwin's  ingenuity,  is  made  to  swing  its 
ponderous  bulk  with  an  adroit  dexterity  that 
might  have  been  envied,  in  the  depths  of  his 
African  forest,  by  the  ancestral  Gorilla  him- 
self:— 

"  All  these  breaks    depend   merely    on    the 

number  of  related    forms    that    have    become 

extinct."  l      Could    anything  be  more  simple  ? 

The  "  breaks  "  are  there  indeed :  but  they  are 

1  "  Descent  of  Man,"  voL  i.  pp.  200,  201. 


Scientific  Sophisms.  241 

there  only  in  the  absence  of  the  "  related  forms  " 
"graduating  insensibly."  You  have  only  to 
imagine  the  "  forms  "  and  the  "  breaks "  will 
disappear. 

And  yet,  of  these  same  "  forms  "  it  is  all  the 
while  most  certain  that  they  cannot  be  de- 
scribed ;  they  are  not  known  to  have  existed  ; 
they  are  not  known  to  have  been  "  related "  ; 
they  are  not  known  to  "  have  become  extinct." 
Nor  are  the  "  breaks  "  more  real.  They  are 
breaks  only  on  the  assumption  of  the  hypo- 
thesis :  not  otherwise.  And  the  second  as- 
sumption has  no  power  to  confer  validity  on 
the  first 

20.  From  this  tissue  of  assumptions  we  revert 
to  the  facts.  No  less  a  writer  than  Mr.  Wallace, 
"the  independent  originator  and  by  far  the  best 
expounder  of  the  theory  of  Natural  Selection," 
differs  to  to  ccelo  from  Mr.  Darwin  on  the  question 
of  the  Origin  of  Man.  For  the  creation  of  man, 
as  he  is,  Mr.  Wallace  postulates  the  necessity 
of  the  intervention  of  an  external  Will.  He 
observes  that  even  the  lowest  types  of  savages 
are  in  possession  of  capacities  far  beyond  any 
use  to  which  they  can  apply  them  in  their 
present  condition,  and  therefore  they  could  not 
have  been  evolved  from  the  mere  necessities 


242  Men. 

of  their  environment.  These  capacities  have 
respect  to  future  possibilities  of  culture.  But 
prolepsis,  anticipation,  involves  intention  and 
a  will. 

He  contends  further,1 — that  even  as  to  his 
body,  Man  is  a  clear  and  palpable  and  positive 
exception  to  the  theory  of  Evolution.  To 
produce  the  human  frame  required,  he  says, 
the  intervention  of  some  special  agency.  He 
adverts  to  the  peculiar  disposition  of  the  hair 
on  man,  especially  that  nakedness  of  the  back 
which  is  common  to  all  races  of  men,  and  to 
the  peculiar  construction  of  the  hand  and  foot. 
"  The.  hand  of  man,"  he  tells  us,  "  contains  latent 
capacities  and  powers  which  are  unused  by 
savages,  and  must  have  been  even  less  used  by 
palaeolithic  man  and  his  still  ruder  predecessors. 
It  has  all  the  appearance  of  an  organ  prepared 
for  the  use  of  civilized  man,  and  one  which 
was  required  to  render  civilization  possible." 

Again  :  speaking  of  the  "  wonderful  power, 
range,  flexibility,  and  sweetness  of  the  musical 
sounds  producible  by  the  human  larynx,"  he 
adds,  "  the  habits  of  savages  give  no  indication 
of  how  this  faculty  could  have  been  developed." 
..."  The  singing  of  savages  is  a  more 
or  less  monotonous  howling,  and  the  females 
1  u  Natural  Selection,"  pp.  332-360. 


Scientific  Sophisms.  243 

seldom  sing  at  all."  "  It  seems  as  if  the  organ 
had  been  prepared  in  anticipation  of  the  future 
progress  of  man,  since  it  contains  latent  capa- 
cities which  are  useless  to  him  in  his  earlier 
condition."  l 

Mr.  Wallace  is  in  perfect  agreement  also  with 
Christian  theism  in  the  value  he  attaches  to 
man's  "capacity  to  form  ideal  conceptions  of 
space  and  time,  of  eternity  and  infinity — the 
capacity  for  intense  artistic  feelings  of  pleasure, 
in  form,  colour,  and  composition — and  those 
abstract  notions  of  form  and  number  which 
render  geometry  possible,"  as  well  as  with 
respect  to  the  non-bestial  origin  of  moral  per- 
ception." 3 

And  beyond  all  this,  he  considers  Man  as  not 
only  placed  "  apart,  as  the  head  and  culminating 
point  of  the  grand  series  of  organic  nature,  but 
as  in  some  degree  a  new  and  distinct  order  of 
being."  ..."  When  the  first  rude  spear 
was  formed  to  assist  in  the  chase ;  when  fire 
was  first  used  to  cook  his  food  ;  when  the  first 

1  On  this  subject,  indeed,  even  Mr.  Darwin  himself 
admits  that  "  neither  the  enjoyment  nor  the  capacity  of 
producing  musical  notes  are  faculties  of  the  least  direct 
use  to  man  in  reference  to  his  ordinary  habits  of  life  ; 
they  must  be  ranked  amongst  the  most  mysterious  with 
which  he  is  endowed." — Descent  of  Man,  vol.  ii.  p.  333. 

8  "  Natural  Selection,"  pp.  351,  352. 


244  Mtn. 

seed  was  sown  or  shoot  planted,  a  grand  revo- 
lution was  effected  in  nature,  a  revolution  which 
in  all  the  previous  ages  of  the  earth's  history 
has  had  no  parallel,  for  a  being  had  arisen  who 
was  no  longer  necessarily  subject  to  change  with 
the  changing  universe,  a  being  who  was  in  some 
degree  superior  to  nature,  inasmuch  as  he  knew 
how  to  control  and  regulate  her  action,  and 
could  keep  himself  in  harmony  with  her,  not  by 
a  change  in  body,  but  by  an  advance  in  mind." 

Against  facts  like  these,  of  what  avail  are 
Mr.  Darwin's  ingenious  speculations  ?  The 
answer  may  be  given  in  the  words  of  Professor 
Mivart.  It  is  the  same  high  authority  that 
pronounced  Mr.  Darwin's  "  Origin  of  Species " 
to  be  "a  puerile  hypothesis,"  and  its  distinc- 
tive characteristic,  "a  conception  utterly  irra- 
tional; "l  who  now  adds, 

"Thus,  then,  in  our  judgment  the  author  of 
the  '  Descent  of  Man '  has  UTTERLY  FAILED 
in  the  only  part  of  his  work  which  is  really 
important :  .  .  .  and  if  Mr.  Darwin's  failure 
should  lead  to  an  increase  of  philosophic  culture 
on  the  part  of  physicists,  we  may  therein  find 
some  consolation  for  the  injurious  effects  which 
his  work  is  likely  to  produce  on  too  many  of 
our  half-educated  classes."  * 

1  "Lessons  from  Nature,"  p.  300.         *  Ibid.,  p.  184. 


Scientific  Sophisms.  245 

Nor  is  this  all.  Man  is  something  more  than 
an  intellectual  animal.  He  is  a  free  moral 
agent :  and,  as  such, — and  with  the  infinite 
future  which  that  freedom  opens  out  before  him 
— he  differs  from  all  the  rest  of  the  visible 
universe  by  "  a  distinction  so  profound  that  no 
one  of  those  which  separate  other  visible  beings 
is  comparable  with  it.  The  gulf  which  lies 
between  his  being  as  a  whole,  and  that  of  the 
highest  brute,  marks  off  vastly  more  than  a 
mere  kingdom  of  material  beings,  and  man,  so 
considered,  differs  far  more  from  an  elephant 
or  a  gorilla  than  do  these  from  the  dust  of  the 
earth  on  which  they  tread." 1 

1  M  Lessons  from  Nature,"  p.  184. 


CHAPTER    XIII. 

ANIMA  MUNDI. 

"  There  lives  and  works 
A  Soul  in  all  things  :  and  that  Soul  is  God." 

— Cowper. 

THIS  witness  is  true :  and  its  truth  is  not  im- 
paired by  the  ignorant  positiveness  of  Agnosti- 
cism, or  by  the  positive  ignorance  of  Atheism. 
As  to  Atheism,  indeed,  the  verdict  already  pro- 
nounced, after  a  most  minute  and  searching 
investigation,  is  found  to .  be  unalterable  :— 
"Every  part  of  the  universe  is  an  argument 
against  atheism  as  a  theory  thereof." l  Ag- 
nosticism, despite  its  pretensions  to  Knowledge, 
as  its  very  name  imports,  is  a  mere  confession 
of  Ignorance.  And  even  that  ignorance,  con- 
fronted by  the  facts  of  the  universe,  ceases  to 
be  possible  when  its  votaries  are  willing  to  cease 
to  be  -"willingly  ignorant." 

Is    there,   or  is   there  not,    "a   Soul    in   all 

1  Theodore  Parker  :  Theism,  Atheism,  and  the  Popular 
Theology,  p.  10. 


Scientific  Sophisms.  247 

things  ? "  Theism  affirms,  Atheism  denies, 
Agnosticism  ignores,  the  existence  of  any  such 
Soul.  To  put  an  end  to  controversy  the  appeal 
is  made  to  facts.  Is  the  affirmation  of  Theism 
unsustained  by  evidence?  Is  the  negation  of 
Atheism  consistent'  with  the  admissions  which 
Atheism  itself  has  been  compelled  to  make  ? 
Is  the  ignorance  of  Agnosticism  compatible 
with  the  knowledge  to  which  Agnosticism 
makes  such  arrogant  pretensions  ? 

I.  "In  all  things."  Let  us  begin  at  the  be- 
ginning. It  is  in  the  phenomena  of  crystalliza- 
tion that  Professor  Tyndall  finds  the  foundation 
of  all  higher  phenomena — life,  growth,  repro- 
duction, intelligence,  will.  He  believes  "that 
the  formation  of  a  crystal,  a  plant,  or  an  animal, 
is  a  purely  mechanical  problem,  which  differs 
from  the  problems  of  ordinary  mechanics  in  the 
smallness  of  the  masses  and  the  complexity 
of  the  process  involved."  l 

Take  now  the  least  complex  of  the  three 
instances  of  constructive  power  here  mentioned, 
— that  of  crystallization.  "  The  human  mind," 
says  the  Professor,  "  is  as  little  disposed  to  look 
unquestioning  at  these  pyramidal  salt  crystals 

1  "Fragments  of  Science,"  p.  119. 


248  Amma  Mimdi. 

as  to  look  at  the  pyramids  of  Egypt  without 
enquiring  whence  they  came. 

"  How  then  are  those  salt  pyramids  built  up  ?  Guided 
by  analogy,  you  may,  if  you  like,  suppose  that,  swarming 
among  the  constituent  molecules  of  the  salt,  there  is  an 
invisible  population,  controlled  and  coerced  by  some 
invisible  master,  and  placing  the  atomic  blocks  in  their 
position.  This  however  is  not  the  scientific  idea,  nor  do 
I  think  your  good  sense  would  accept  it  as  a  likely  one. 
The  scientific  idea  is,  that  the  molecules  act  upon  each 
other  without  the  intervention  of  slave  labour  ;  that  they 
attract  each  other  and  repel  each  other  at  certain  definite 
points  or  poles,  and  in  certain  definite  directions,  and 
that  the  pyramidal  form  is  the  result  of  this  play  of  at- 
traction and  repulsion.  While  then  the  blocks  of  Egypt 
were  laid  down  by  a  power  external  to  themselves,  these 
molecular  blocks  of  salt  are  self-posited,  being  fixed  in 
their  places  by  the  forces  with  which  they  act  upon  each 
other."1 

On  this  very  pertinent  analogy  it  is  to  be 
remarked  that  Professor  Tyndall  has  specified 
only  the  points  on  which  it  holds  good ;  and 
here  his  opponents  are  in  perfect  accord  with 
himself.  The  only  point  in  respect  of  which 
they  differ  from  him  is  that  which  he  has 
omitted  to  notice  ;  and  in  that  point  the  ana- 
logy entirely  fails. 

When,  for  the  slave-labour  employed  in  the 
construction  of  the  pyramids,  we  have  sub- 

1  "Fragments  of  Science,"  pp.  114,  115. 


Scientific  Sophisms.  249 

stituted  the  mutual  attractions  and  repulsions 
which  determine  the  position  of  the  minute 
blocks  employed  in  the  construction  of  a  crystal, 
we  have  dealt  with  only  one  element  of  the 
problem.  That  slave-labour  was  employed  not 
otherwise  than  as  the  consequent  of  antecedent 
design.  The  huge  blocks  of  granite  or  of 
limestone  were  not  deposited  in  their  relative 
positions  except  as  those  positions  had  been 
antecedently  determined  "by  some  invisible 
master  ; " — the  architect  who  planned  ;  the 
monarch  who  ordained  and  controlled.  And 
when  we  have  said  that  the  infinitesimally 
minute  molecular  blocks  in  a  crystal  of  salt 
or  of  sugar  are  "self-posited,"  we  have  indeed 
dispensed  with  the  necessity  of  external  physical 
force  necessary  to  simple  super-position  ;  but 
we  have  made  no  advance  whatever  towards  a 
substitute  for  that  Intellectual  Force  which  is 
(at  least)  equally  necessary  in  order  to  sym- 
metrical super-position.  We  have  dispensed 
with  "the  intervention  of  slave- labour."  We 
have  not  dispensed  with  the  intervention  of  the 
Will  by  which  that  labour  was  employed,  or 
the  Intelligence  by  which  it  was  directed,  or  the 
Power  by  which  it  was  controlled.  We  have 
dismissed  the  slaves  only.  The  "Invisible 
Master  "  still  remains  behind. 


250  Anima  Mundi. 

2.  With  regard  to  the  pyramids  of  Egypt  all 
are  agreed.  Who  planned  them  ? 

"  Was  Cheops  or  Cephrenes  architect 

Of  either  Pyramid  that  bears  his  name  ?  * 

By  what  agencies  were  they  erected?  With 
what  object  were  they  designed  ?  These  ques- 
tions Professor  Tyndall  regards — and  rightly 
regards — as  at  once  instinctive  and  inevitable. 
But  when  these  same  questions  are  put  with 
regard  to  the  "pyramidal  salt  crystals,"  whose 
exquisite  finish  transcends  all  architectural 
composition,  the  only  answer  is,  that  the  ques- 
tions are  all  at  once  and  altogether  out  of 
place. 

And  yet  it  is  Professor  Tyndall  who  tells  us 
that  the  very  same  constitution  of  mind  which 
compels  us  to  question  the  pyramids  compels 
us  also  to  question  the  crystals.  Only,  the 
three  questions  which  were  inevitable  in  the 
former  case  must,  in  the  latter,  be  reduced  to 
one.  "  Who  planned  ? "  and  "  With  what  ob- 
ject?" are  questions  inseparable  from  intelli- 
gence in  the  one  case.  But  in  the  other,  we  are 
told  that  these  are  questions  with  which  intelli- 
gence has  nothing  to  do.  "  The  scientific  idea  " 
is  limited  exclusively  to  the  one  remaining 
question — the  question  least  interesting  and 

S 


Scientific  Sophisms.  251 

least  important  of  the  three — What  forces,  and 
what  laws  operated  in  their  construction  ? 

That  the  final  form  of  the  pyramid  expresses 
the  thought  of  the  "  invisible  master,"  whether 
Cheops  or  Cephrenes,  is,  on  all  hands,  admitted. 
How  then  can  it  be  denied — as  it  is  denied — 
that  the  crystal  expresses  the  thought  of  any 
intelligence  whatever  ? 

3.  But,  in  the  crystal,  "  the  molecular  blocks 
are    j^-posited."     And,   in    like    manner,   the 
valves  of  a  steam-engine  are  said  to  be  "  self- 
adjusting."      But    the    self-adjustment    of   the 
valves,  like  the  self-positing  of  the  molecules, 
must  ultimately  be  referred  to  Mind.     Except 
as  the  result  of  the  operations  of  a  designing 
mind,  there  are  no  valves  "self-adjusting,"  and 
no  molecular  blocks  "self-posited." 

Are  we  asked  to  dispense  with  Mind,  because 
"the  agencies  by  which  the  crystals  are  built, 
are  incomparably  superior  to  the  agencies  em- 
ployed in  the  building  of  the  pyramids  "  ?  To 
take  this  ground  is  to  assume  that  the  more 
exquisite  the  agency  employed,  the  less  mani- 
fest, or  the  less  certain,  are  the  evidences  of 
the  operation  of  mind : — an  assumption  directly 
contrary  to  the  fact. 

4.  The   human    mind,  as    Professor   Tyndall 
himself  describes  it,  refuses  to  rest  satisfied  with 


252  Anima  Mundi. 

a  reference  to  "the  play  of  atoms  and  molecules 
under  the  operation  of  laws."  The  obvious 
question  instinctively  recurs  : — How  come  these 
atoms  and  molecules  to  act  with  preconcerted 
harmony,  and  "  like  disciplined  squadrons  under 
a  governing  eye,  arranging  themselves  into  bat- 
talions, gathering  round  distinct  centres,  and 
forming  themselves  into  solid  masses,"1  move 
with  unerring  precision  towards  a  predetermined 
goal?  This  is  the  question  which,  not  in 
consequence  of  its  experience  but  in  virtue  of 
its  constitution,  the  human  mind  is  compelled 
to  ask.  To  answer  it  by  referring  to  laws  self- 
constituted,  or  atoms  self-posited,  or  molecules 
self-adjusted,  is  to  leave  untouched  the  very 
thing  to  be  accounted  for.  What  the  mind 
demands  a  reason  for  is,  the  exquisite  adjust- 
ment here  alleged :  "  and  this  reason  is  not 
rendered  by  referring  the  inquirer  to  the  opera- 
tion of  laws ;  for,  apart  from  and  outside  of 
matter,  there  are  no  such  entities  in  existence 
as  the  laws  of  matter.  The  laws  of  matter  are 
simply  the  mode,  in  which  matter  in  virtue  of 
its  constitution,  acts.  Oxygen  unites  chemically 
with  hydrogen,  in  certain  proportions,  under 
certain  conditions,  simply  because  of  the  quali- 
ties or  attributes  wherewith  these  two  gases  are 
1  "  Fragments  of  Science,"  p.  448. 


Scientific  Sophisms.  253 

invested.  It  is  not  the  law  which  determines 
the  combination,  but  the  qualities  which  deter- 
mine  the  law.  These  elements  act  as  they  act, 
simply  because  they  are  what  they  are."1  How 
then  came  they  to  be  what  they  are  ?  These 
"myriad  types  of  the  same  letter";  these  un- 
hewn blocks  from  an  unknown  quarry ;  more 
indestructible  than  adamant ;  the  substratum 
of  all  the  phenomena  of  the  universe  ;  and  yet, 
amid  the  wreck  of  all  things  else,  this  infinitude 
of  discrete  atoms  alone  is  found  incapable  of 
change  or  of  decay.  Who  preserves  to  them 
their  absolute  identity,  notwithstanding  their 
infinite  variety  ?  Who  endowed  them  with 
their  inalienable  properties  ?  WTho  impressed 
upon  them  the  ineffaceable  characters  which 
they  are  found  to  bear  ?  At  what  mint  were 
they  struck,  on  what  anvil  were  they  forged, 
in  what  loom  were  they  woven,  so  as  to  possess 
"all  the  characteristics  of  manufactured  articles"? 
5.  Whatever  then  may  be  said  about  "the 
formation  of"  "a  plant,  or  an  animal,"  it  is 
certain  that  the  formation  of  an  Atom — and 
consequently  of  a  crystal — is  precisely  the  op- 
posite of  that  alleged  by  Professor  Tyndall : — it 
is  not  "a  purely  mechanical  problem."  "Manu- 

1  "  Atomism."      By  Prof.  Watts.      Belfast :    Mullan, 
1874,  p.  IS- 


254  Anima  Mundi. 

factured  articles"  may,  or  may  not,  be  pro- 
duced by  machines ;  but  machines  are  a  product 
of  Mind.  And  where  there  is  no  Mind,  there 
are  no  "  manufactured  articles." 

6.  Between  the  curiosities  of  crystallography 
and  the  mysteries  of  life  there  yawns  a  gulf 
measurable  only  by  the  whole  diameter  of 
being.  It  is  even  Haeckel  himself  who  admits 
that  "  The  phenomena  which  living  things  pre- 
sent have  no  parallel  in  the  mineral  world."1 
And  yet  Professor  Tyndall  puts  the  properties 
of  minerals,  of  mammoths,  and  of  men,  into  one 
and  the  same  category ;  tells  us  that  however 
strikingly  they  may  be  differentiated  by  specific 
characters,  yet,  in  every  case,  this  difference  is 
one  not  of  kind,  but  merely  of  degree  ;  and  that 
"  the  formation "  of  a  man,  or  an  oak,  equally 
with  that  of  a  snowflake,  is  nothing  more  than 
"a  purely  mechanical  problem,  which  differs 
from  the  problems  of  ordinary  mechanics " 
— not  by  the  introduction  of  a  new  element, 
not  by  the  mysterious  origination  of  vital  or 
mental  force, — but  only  by  "the  smallness  of 
the  masses  and  the  complexity  of  the  process 
involved." 

Now  this  assertion  is  not  only  unsupported  by 
evidence  :  the  evidence  completely  disproves  it. 
1  M  History  of  Creation,"  vol.  i.  p.  681. 


Scientific  Sophisms.  255 

The  points  involved  in  it  are  two : — First,  the 
introduction  of  Life.  Second,  the  manifesta- 
tions of  Mind.  As  to  the  former  of  these, 
Professor  Huxley  himself  declares  that — 

7.  "  The  present  state  of  knowledge  furnishes 
us  with  no  link  between  the  living  and  the  not- 
living."1     Professor  Haeckel  admits  that  there 
is  nothing  in    chemistry  that  can  produce  life. 
That    chemistry    cannot    bridge    the    colossal 
chasm  between  the  living   and  the  not-living. 
That  it  cannot  explain  how  inorganic  is  trans- 
muted into  organic  matter.     That  "most   na- 
turalists, even  at  the  present  day,  are  inclined 
to  give  up  the  attempt  at  natural  explanation 
'of  the  origin  of  life,'  and   to   take   refuge   in 
the  miracle  of  inconceivable  creation."  z     In  the 
words  of  one  of  them,  "  We  have  given  up  the 
idea  that  we  can  make  things  grow."     Or,  to 
take  but  one  instance  more, — the  final  sentence 
of  Du  Bois  Reymond, — "  It  is  futile  to  attempt 
by  chemistry  to  bridge  the  chasm  between  the 
living  and  the  not-living." 

8.  Futile  as  is  the  attempt  however,  Professor 
Huxley  has  shown  himself  equal  to  it.     In  his 
most  deliberate  utterance  he  tells  us  that — 

1  Encycl.  Brit.,  Art.  "  Biology." 

•  u  History  of  Creation,"  vol.  i.  p.  327. 


256  Anima  Mundi. 

M  A  mass  of  living  protoplasm  is  simply  a  molecular 
machine  of  great  complexity,  the  total  results  of  the 
working  of  which,  or  its  vital  phenomena,  depend,  on  the 
one  hand,  on  its  construction,  and  on  the  other,  upon  the 
energy  supplied  to  it  ;  and  to  speak  of  '  vitality '  as  any- 
thing but  the  name  of  a  series  of  operations,  is  as  if  one 
should  talk  of  the  horologity  of  a  clock"  l 

This  oracular  deliverance  is  worthy  of  the 
most  careful  consideration,  not  less  from  its  own 
merits  than  from  the  celebrity  of  its  author. 
From  it  we  learn  that  a  "  living "  thing  is  "  a 
machine;"  "simply"  a  machine.  "The  results 
of  the  working  of"  this  machine — Milton's 
"  Paradise  Lost,"  for  example  ;  or  Shakspere's 
Plays  ;  Galileo  and  Kepler,  Newton  and  Pascal, 
Socrates  and  Savonarola,  Stephenson  and 
Edison,  Turner  and  Ruskin,  —  "  the  total 
results" — are  due  to  two  sources.  The  first 
of  these  is  "  its  construction  ; "  the  second,  is 
"  the  energy  supplied  to  it." 

Since,  however,  to  our  instructor  not  less  than 
to  ourselves,  the  "  construction  "  of  "  a  mass  of 
living  protoplasm  "  is  an  unfathomable  secret, 
of  which,  notwithstanding  his  high  attainments, 
even  he  is  profoundly  ignorant ;  and  since  "  the 
energy  supplied  to  it "  remains  no\v,  as  ever, 
an  absolutely  unknown  quantity ;  it  might 

1  Prof.  Huxley,  Encyc.  Brit.,  Art.  "  Biology,"  1875. 


Scientific  Sophisms*  257 

perhaps  have  been  more  candid,  as  it  would 
certainly  have  been  less  misleading,  if  it  had 
been  said  at  once,  and  without  ambiguous 
circumlocution,  that  "  its  vital  phenomena 
depend"  on  something  of  which  nothing  is 
known. 

It  is  Prof.  Huxley  himself  who  tells  us  that 
the  "  lifeless  compounds  "  carbonic  acid,  water, 
and  ammonia,  cannot  combine — cannot,  by  any 
wit  of  man,  be  combined — so  as  to  "  give  rise 
to  the  still  more  complex  body,  protoplasm," 
unless  a  principle  of  life  presides  over  the  opera- 
tion. Unless  under  those  auspices  the  com- 
bination never  takes  place.  But  when  we  ask, 
What  is  that  principle  of  life  ?  What  is  that 
presiding  Power  ?  We  are  told  that  there  is  no 
such  thing  ;  that  "  vitality  "  has  no  more  real 
existence  than  "  horologity ; "  and  that  we 
might  as  well  speak  of  a  "  steam-engine  prin- 
ciple," a  "  watch-principle,"  or  a  "  railroad- 
principle,"  as  of  a  "vital  principle,"  or  vital 
force. 

And  yet,  not  even  the  scathing  sarcasm  of 
which  Prof.  Huxley  is  a  master,  can  avail  to 
conceal  the  fact  that  the  analogies  thus  sug- 
gested fail  in  every  particular.  The  power  of  a 
steam-engine  is  in  no  degree  dependent  on  its 
connection  with  some  antecedent  steam-engine. 


258  Anima  Mundi. 

The  perfection  of  a  watch  is  not  derived  by 
contact  from  some  other  watch.  But  the  per- 
fection of  vital  movement,  and  the  power  of 
vital  force  are  derived  by  contact,  are  depend- 
ent on  connection  with  other,  and  pre-existing 
living  bodies.  Mr.  Huxley  tells  us  of  something 
which  he  finds  it  convenient  to  call  by  the  name 
of  "  subtle  influences."  And  these  "  subtle 
influences,"  he  says,  "  will  convert  the  dead  pro- 
toplasm into  the  living  protoplasm;"  will  "raise 
the  complex  substance  of  dead  protoplasm  to 
the  higher  power,  as  one  may  say,  of  living 
protoplasm."  *  What  are  these  "  subtle  in- 
fluences ? "  What  else  are  they  but  vital 
force  ? 

It  is  easy  to  talk  of  a  living  body  as  "a  mole- 
cular machine,"  and  to  attribute  "  vital  pheno- 
mena "  to  its  "  construction."  But  what  of  The 
Constructor?  It  is  easy  to  talk  of  "lifeless 
compounds  "  as  the  "  constituents  "  of  a  living 
body.  But  then  these  lifeless  compounds  are 
"constituents"  that  do  not  constitute.  They 
do  not  even  constitute  "  The  Physical  Basis  of 
Life."  Still  less  do  they  constitute  the  energy 
of  Life  itself.  "  Let  the  matter  be  disguised  or 
slurred  over  as  it  may,  the  fact  remains  that  we 
are  utterly  unable  to  imitate  vital  affinity  so  far 
1  Fortnightly  Review  for  1869,  p.  138. 


Scientific  Sophisms.  259 

as  to  make  a  bit  of  material  ready  for  its  use, 
or  even  to  make  any  definite  substance  that 
would  have  similar  chemical  relations."  l 

Let  it  however  be  supposed,  that  Prof.  Hux- 
ley's vaticination  has  been  realized.  Let  it 
be  assumed  that  some  day  "by  the  advance 
of  molecular  physics  "  the  learned  Professor  will 
be  able  to  show  us  how  it  is  that  the  properties 
peculiar  to  water  have  resulted  from  the  pro- 
perties peculiar  to  the  gases  whose  junction 
constitutes  water;  and  similarly,  how  the 
characteristic  properties  of  protoplasm  have 
sprung  from  properties  in  the  water,  ammonia, 
and  carbonic  acid  that  have  united  to  form 
protoplasm  ;  even  then,  knowing  all  this,  we 
should  be  as  far  as  ever  from  the  more  recon- 
dite knowledge  up  to  which  it  is  expected  to 
lead.  For  this  knowledge  leaves  us  as  ignorant 
as  before  concerning  that  "  supplied  energy  "  of 
Life,  without  which  no  protoplasm  is  ever 
formed.  "  To  extract  the  genesis  of  life  from 
any  data  that  completest  acquaintance  with  the 
stages  and  processes  of  protoplasmic  growth 
can  furnish,  is  a  truly  hopeless  problem.  Given 
the  plan  of  a  house,  with  samples  of  its  brick 
and  mortar,  to  find  the  name  and  nationality 
of  the  householder,  would  be  child's  play  in 
1  Dr.  Elam,  "Automatism  and  Evolution." 


260  Anima  Mundi. 

comparison.  Life,  as  we  have  seen,1  is  not  the 
offspring  of  protoplasm,  but  something  which 
has  been  superinduced  upon,  and  may  be  separ- 
ated from  the  protoplasm  that  serves  as  its 
material  basis.  It  is  therefore  distinct  from  the 
matter  which  it  animates,  and,  being  thus  im- 
material, cannot  possibly  become  better  known 
by  any  analysis  of  matter."  8 

9.  "  In  every  living  thing  there  are  physico- 
chemical  actions,  which  also  occur  out  of  the 
body,  and  vital  actions.  These  last,  however, 
are  peculiar  to  living  beings,  and  cannot  be 
imitated.  In  galvanic  batteries,  and  in  other 
arrangements  made  by  man,  we  may  have  phy- 
sico-chemical actions,  but  never  anything  at  all 
like  vital  actions?  The  physicist  "seems  to 
think  that  pabulum  goes  into  a  living  thing  and 
becomes  changed  chemically,  just  as  it  may  be 
changed  in  his  laboratory,  and  the  results  of 
this  change  are  work,  and  certain  compounds 
which  are  got  rid  of.  In  all  this,  the  living 
matter  which  is  absolutely  essential  in  every 
one  of  these  changes — without  which  not  one  of 
them  could  occur,  or  even  be  conceived  as  occur- 
ring in  thought,  is  persistently  ignored."  "  But 
although  the  new  schools  hold  it  absurd  to 

1   Vide  ante,  pp.  119,  120. 

1  Thornton,  "  Old  Fashioned  Ethics,"  pp.  168  et  seq. 


Scientific  Sophisms.  261 

suppose  that  any  peculiar  power  acting  from 
within  or  from  without  can  influence  the 
changes  in  matter,  or  direct  its  forces,  they 
see  no  impropriety  in  attributing  to  matter 
itself,  and  to  force,  guiding,  and  directing, 
and  forming  agencies."  •  They  transfer  to 
the  non-living  those  active,  controlling,  and 
directing  powers  which  have  hitherto  been  re- 
garded as  the  attributes  of  life  alone.  Accord- 
ing to  them,  it  is  not  "  will,"  or  "  mind,"  or 
even  "vital  force  " — it  is  merely  "  the  inorganic 
molecule  " — that  arranges,  governs,  guides,  con- 
trols. 

Thus,  for  example,  Prof.  Huxley  has  affirmed 
that  a  "particle  of  jelly  "guides  forces.  To  his 
mind,  he  tells  us,  it  is  a  fact  of  the  profoundest 
significance  that  "this  particle  of  jelly  is  capable 
of  guiding  physical  forces  in  srrch  a  manner 
as  to  give  rise  to  those  exquisite  and  almost 
mathematically  arranged  structures,  etc." l  It 
is  not  easy  to  see,  however,  why  the  idea  of 
physical  forces  being  guided  by  a  particle  of 
jelly  should  be  accepted  as  a  fact  of  "profound 
significance,"  while  the  idea  of  "vitality  "  acting 
upon  the  particles  of  this  jelly,  and  guiding 
them  and  their  forces,  should  be  denounced  as 
a  fiction,  absurd,  ridiculous,  frivolous,  fanciful 
1  Introduction  to  the  Classification  of  Animals. 


262  Anima  Mundi. 

Besides :  that  physical  forces  guide  matter,  is  a 
doctrine  neither  new  nor  strange  ;  but  here  we 
have  the  doctrine  that  matter  guides  physical 
forces — a  doctrine  not  less  strange  than  new. 
"  But  is  it  not  more  probable  that  neither  matter 
nor  force  is  capable  of  guiding  or  directing  force 
or  matter  ?  Matter  may  be  said  to  rule  and 
guide  itself,  but.  it  can  hardly  be  ruled  and 
guided  by  itsel  It  might,  however,  be  ruled 
and  guided  by  something  else. 

"Concerning  the  dictum  about  jelly  guiding 
physical  forces,  I  shall,  therefore,  venture  to 
remark — I.  That  living  matter  is  not  jelly ; 
7.  That  neither  jelly  nor  matter  is  capable  of 
guiding  or  directing  forces  of  any  kind  ;  and  3. . 
That  the  capacity  of  jelly  to  guide  forces,  which 
Prof.  Huxley  says  is  a  fact  of  the  profoundest 
significance  to  him,  is  not  a  fact  at  all,  but 
merely  an  assertion."  * 

10.  "  If  a  machine  that  moved  itself  could,  of 
itself,  divide  into  new  machines,  and  each  take 
up  particles  of  brass  and  iron  and  steel,  or 
other  substances  entering  into  its  construction, 
and  deposit  these  in  the  proper  places,  so  that 
the  several  wheels  and  other  elementary  parts 
of  the  mechanism  should  grow  evenly  and 
regularly,  and  continue  to  work  while  all  these 
1  Dr.  Scale's  "  Protoplasm,"  pp.  74,  75,  77,  81. 


Scientific  Sophisms.  263 

changes  were  proceeding, — such  a  machine,  it 
is  true,  would  in  some  particulars  be  like  a 
living  organism."  But  how  stands  the  fact  ? 
"  If  any  apparatus  we  could  contrive  developed 
all  possible  modes  of  force — motion,  heat,  light, 
electricity,  magnetism,  chemical  action,  and  any 
number  of  others  yet  to  be  discovered — that 
apparatus  would  still  present  no  approach  what- 
ever to  any  organism  known.  Of  course  such 
a  thing  might  be  called  an  organism,  just  as  a 
watch,  or  a  steam-engine,  or  water,  or  anything 
else,  may  be  called  a  creature, — a  worm  or  any 
other  living  thing  called  a  machine.  But  every 
living  machine  seems  to  grow  of  itself,  builds 
itself  up,  and  multiplies,  while  every  non-living 
machine  that  has  yet  been  discovered  is  made. 
It  neither  grows,  nor  can  it  produce  machines 
like  itself"  "  Will  mechanics  account  for  the 
movements  of  an  amoeba  ?  Where  is  the  being 
that  grows  by  mechanics,  and  where  is  the 
mechanical  apparatus  that  can  be  said  to  grow  ? 
Has  mechanics  taught  us  the  difference  between 
a  living  seed  and  the  same  seed  when  it  has 
ceased  to  live?"  * 

1 1.  To  revert,  for  a  moment,  from  "  vitality  " 
to  "  horologity."      When   Mr.  Lewes — a  writer 
distinguished   for  his    opposition   to    what    he 
'     »  Dr.  Beale,  "  Protoplasm,"  pp.  47,  486. 


264  Anima  Mundi. 

calls  Theological  explanations  in  Science — tells 
us  that  we  may  just  as  well  speak  of  a  watch 
as  the  abode  of  a  "watch- force,"  as  speak 
of  the  organization  of  an  animal  as  the  abode 
of  a  "  vital  Force," l  he  is  guilty  of  an  over- 
sight common  to  all  those  who  share  his  views. 
It  is  quite  true  that  the  Forces  by  which  a 
watch  moves  are  natural  Forces.  But  it  is  the 
relation  of  interdependence  in  which  these 
Forces  are  placed  to  each  other,  or,  in  other 
words,  the  adjustment  of  them  to  a  particu- 
lar Purpose,  which  constitutes  the  "  watch- 
force  ; "  and  the  seat  of  this  Force — which  is 
in  fact  no  one  Force  but  a  combination  of 
many  Forces  —  is  in  the  Intelligence  which 
conceived  that  combination,  and  in  tJie  Will 
which  gave  it  effect. 

"  The  mechanisms  devised  by  Man  are  in  this  respect 
only  an  image  of  the  more  perfect  mechanism  of  Nature, 
in  which  the  same  principle  of  Adjustment  is  always  the 
highest  result  which  Science  can  ascertain  or  recognise. 
There  is  this  difference,  indeed, — that  in  regard  to  our 
works  we  see  that  our  knowledge  of  natural  laws  is  very 
imperfect,  and  our  control  over  them  is  very  feeble  ; 
whereas  in  the  machinery  of  Nature  there  is  evidence  of 
complete  knowledge  and  of  absolute  control.  The  uni- 
versal rule  is,  that  everything  is  brought  about  by  way  of 
Natural  Consequence.  But  another  rule  is,  that  all  natural 

1  Lewes's  "  Philosophy  of  Aristotle,"  p.  37. 


Scientific  Sophisms.  265 

consequences  meet  and  fit  into  each  other  in  endless 
circles  of  Harmony  and  of  Purpose.  And  this  can  only 
be  explained  by  the  fact  that  what  we  call  Natural  Con- 
sequence is  always  the  conjoint  effect  of  an  infinite  num- 
ber of  elementary  Forces,  whose  action  and  reaction  are 
under  direction  of  the  Will  which  we  see  obeyed,  and  of 
the  Purposes  which  we  see  actually  attained."  1 

12.  The  relation  which  an  organic  structure 
bears  to  its  purpose  in  Nature  is  not  less  capable 
of  certain  recognition  than  the  same  relation 
between  a  machine  and  its  purpose  in  human 
art  "  It  is  absurd  to  maintain,  for  example, 
that  the  purpose  of  the  cellular  arrangement  of 
material  in  combining  lightness  with  strength, 
is  a  purpose  legitimately  cognisable  by  Science 
in  the  Menai  Bridge,  but  is  not  as  legitimately 
cognisable  when  it  is  seen  in  Nature,  actually 
serving  the  same  use.  The  little  Barnacles 
which  crust  the  rocks  at  low  tide,  and  which 
to  live  there  at  all  must  be  able  to  resist  the 
surf,  have  the  building  of  their  shells  con- 
structed strictly  with  reference  to  this  necessity. 
It  is  a  structure  all  hollowed  and  chambered  on 
the  plan  which  engineers  have  so  lately  dis- 
covered as  an  arrangement  of  material  by  which 
the  power  of  resisting  strain  or  pressure  is  mul- 
tiplied in  an  extraordinary  degree.  That  shell 

1  The  Duke  of  Argyll's  "Reign  of  Law"  (Sixth 
Edition,),  pp.  124  et  seg. 


266  Anima  Mundi. 

is  as  pure  a  bit  of  mechanics  as  the  bridge ; 
both  being  structures  in  which  the  same  ar- 
rangement is  adapted  to  the  same  end." l 

M  Small,  but  a  work  divine  ; 
Frail,  but  of  force  to  withstand, 
Year  upon  year,  the  shock 
Of  cataract  seas  that  snap 
The  three-decker's  oaken  spine."  ' 

This  is  but  one  instance  out  of  a  number  that 
no  man  can  count. 

The  Electric  Ray,  or  Torpedo,  has  been  pro- 
vided with  a  Battery  which,  while  it  closely 
resembles,  yet  in  the  beauty  and  compactness 
of  its  structure,  it  greatly  exceeds  the  Batteries 
by  which  Man  has  now  learned  to  make  the 
laws  of  Electricity  subservient  to  his  will.  In 
this  Battery  there  are  no  less  than  940  hexa- 
gonal columns,  like  those  of  a  bees'  comb,  and 
each  of  these  is  subdivided  by  a  series  of 
horizontal  plates,  which  appear  to  be  analogous 
to  the  plates  of  the  Voltaic  Pile.  The  whole  is 
supplied  with  an  enormous  amount  of  nervous 
matter,  four  great  branches  of  which  are  as  large 
as  the  animal's  spinal  cord,  and  these  spread 
out  in  a  multitude  of  thread-like  filaments  round 
the  prismatic  columns,  and  finally  pass  into  all 

1  "  The  Reign  of  Law,"  pp.  99, 100. 
«  "  Maud." 


Scientific  Sophisms.  267 

the  cells. l  "A  complete  knowledge  of  all  the 
mysteries  which  have  been  gradually  unfolded 
from  the  days  of  Galvani  to  those  of  Faraday, 
and  of  many  others  which  ure  still  inscrutable  to 
us,  is  exhibited  in  this  structure" 

Well  may  Mr.  Darwin  say,  "  It  is  impossible 
to  conceive  by  what  steps  these  wondrous 
organs  have  been  produced."3  "We  see  the 
Purpose — that  a  special  apparatus  should  be 
prepared,  and  we  see  that  it  is  effected  by 
the  production  of  the  machine  required  :  but 
we  have  not  the  remotest  notion  of  the  means 
employed.  Yet  we  can  see  so  much  as  this, 
that  here  again,  other  laws,  belonging  altogether 
to  another  department  of  Nature — laws  of 
organic  growth — are  made  subservient  to  a  very 
definite  and  very  peculiar  Purpose."  The  laws 
appealed  to  in  the  accomplishment  of  this  pur- 
pose are  at  once  numerous  and  highly  compli- 
cated. They  are  so  because  the  conditions  to 
be  satisfied  refer  not  merely  to  the  generation 
of  Electric  force  in  the  animal  to  which  it  is 
given,  but  to  its  effect  on  Ihe  nervous  system  of 
the  animals  against  which  it  is  to  be  employed, 
and  also  to  the  conducting  medium  in  which 

1  Prof.  Owen's  "Lectures  on  Comparative  Anatomy," 
vol.  ii.  (Fishes). 
8  "  Origin  of  Species."    First  Edition,  p.  192. 


268  Anima  Mundi. 

both  are  moving.  But  the  fact  that  these  con- 
ditions exist,  and  must  be  satisfied,  is  not  the 
ultimate  fact,  it  is  not  even  the  main  fa«t  which 
Science  apprehends  in  such  phenomena  as  these. 
That  which  is  most  observable  and  most  certain, 
is  the  manner  in  which  these  conditions  are 
met.  But  this,  in  other  words,  is  simply  the 
subordination  of  many  laws  to  a  difficult  and 
curious  Purpose ;  a  Purpose  none  the  less 
obvious,  and  a  subordination  not  the  less  re- 
markable, because  effected  through  the  instru- 
mentality of  mechanical  contrivance. 

"  The  new-born  Kangaroo,"  says  Professor  Owen,  "  is 
an  inch  in  length,  naked,  blind,  with  very  rudimental  limbs 
and  tail :  in  one  which  I  examined  the  morning  after  the 
birth,  I  could  discern  no  act  of  sucking :  it  hung,  like  a 
germ,  from  the  end  of  the  long  nipple,  and  seemed  unable 
to  draw  sustenance  therefrom  by  its  own  efforts.  The 
mother  accordingly  is  provided  with  a  peculiar  adapta- 
tion of  a  muscle  (cremaster)  to  the  mammary  gland,  by 
which  she  can  inject  the  milk  from  the  nipple  into  the 
mouth  of  the  pendulous  embryo.  Were  the  larynx  of  the 
little  creature  like  that  of  the  parent,  the  milk  might, 
probably  would,  enter  the  windpipe  and  cause  suffocation  : 
but  the  fcetal  larynx  is  cone-shaped,  with  the  opening  at 
the  apex,  which  projects,  as  in  the  whale-tribe,  into  the 
back  aperture  of  the  nostrils,  where  it  is  closely  embraced 
by  the  muscles  of  the  '  soft  palate.  The  air-passage  is 
thus  completely  separated  from  the  fauces,  and  the  in- 
jected milk  passes  in  a  divided  stream,  on  either  side  the 
base  of  the  larynx,  into  the  oesophagus.  These  correlated 


Scientific  Sophisms.  269 

modifications  of  maternal  and  foetal  structures,  designed 
with  especial  reference  to  the  peculiar  conditions  of  both 
mother  and  offspring,  afford,  as  it  seems  to  me,  irrefra- 
gable evidence  of  Creative  foresight" l 

"The  parts  of  this  apparatus  cannot  have  produced 
one  another ;  one  part  is  in  the  mother,  another  part  in 
the  young  one  ;  without  their  harmony  they  could  not  be 
effective  ;  but  nothing  except  design  can  operate  to  make 
them  harmonious.  They  are  intended  to  work  together  ; 
and  we  cannot  resist  the  conviction  of  this  intention 
when  the  facts  first  come  before  us."  2 

13.  "A  prospect-glass  or  a  forceps  is  an 
instrument ;  they  have  each  a  final  cause ;  that 
is,  they  were  each  made  and  adjusted  for  a 
certain  use.  The  use  of  the  prospect-glass  is  to 
assist  the  eye ;  the  use  of  the  forceps  is  to  assist 
the  hand.  The  prospect-glass  was  made  the 
better  to-  see ;  the  forceps,  the  better  to  grasp. 
The  use  did  not  make  these  instruments ;  they 
were  each  .made  for  the  ttse— which  use  was 
foreseen  and  premeditated  in  the  mind  of  the 
maker  of  them.  We  say  of  each  of  them 
without  a  shadow  of  hesitation :  IF  THIS  HAD 
NOT  FIRST  BEEN  A  THOUGHT,  IT  COULD  NEVER 
HAVE  BEEN  A  THING.  Now,  is  the  Eye  or  the 
Hand  an  instrument  adjusted  to  a  certain  use, 
and  thus  revealing  an  antecedent  purpose  in 

1  Philosophical  Transactions,  1834,  Reade  Lecture,  p. 
29. 
*  Phil.  Inductive  Sciences,  vol.  L  p.  625. 


270  Anima  Mundi. 

the  Creative  Mind,  or  is  it  not?  Can  we  ac- 
count for  either  except  by  saying  that  it  was 
thought  out  before  it  was  wrought  out ;  that  it 
was  a  concept  in  mind  ere  it  could  possibly 
appear  as  a  configuration  in  matter ;  that  before 
it  became  a  fact  in  nature  it  must  needs  have 
been  a  thought  in  God?"* 

14.  Can  we  say  that  although  the  prospect- 
glass  is  the  product  of  mind,  yet  no  mind  pre- 
sided over  the  structure  of  the  eye  ?  According 
to  Mr.  Darwin,  we  can  and  ought.  And  yet 
Mr.  Darwin  begins  by  admitting  it  to  be 
apparently  "in  the  highest  degree  absurd  to 
suppose  that  the  eye,  with  all  its  INIMITABLE 
contrivances  for  adjusting  the  focus  to  different 
distances,  for  admitting  different  amounts  of 
light,  and  for  the  correction  of  spherical  and 
chromatic  aberration,  could  have  been  formed 
by  natural  selection."  He  then  proceeds  to 
indicate  some  "  probable  "  stages  in  the  process 
by  which,  as  he  believes,  the  eye  was  formed — 
a  process  of  natural  selection,  and  of  that 
alone.  His  first  postulate  is,  a  nerve  specially 
endowed  with  sensibility  to  light.  The  optic 
nerve  thus — not  formed,  but — fancied  merely, 
surrounded  by  pigment  cells,  and  covered  by 
translucent  skin,  will,  in  millions  of  ages,  select 
1  "The  Three  Barriers,"  pp.  61  et  seq. 


Scientific  Sophisms.  271 

itself  into  an  eye.  Let  it  be  granted  : — "  in  the 
highest  degree  absurd  "  though  it  be.  But  the 
primary  postulate — how  does  Mr.  Darwin  get 
that  ?  "  How  a  nerve  comes  to  be  sensitive  to 
light,"  he  says,  "  hardly  concerns  us  more  than 
how  life  itself  originated."  Perhaps  not :  but 
both  questions  are  studiously  evaded  when  we 
are  left  to  infer  that  the  nerve  made  itself 
and  that  life  caused  itself  to  live ;  or,  in 
other  words,  that  both  are  examples  of  what 
Mr.  Darwin  strangely  calls  "variation  causing 
alterations? 

Take  now  the  several  steps  of  the  process  as 
pursued  by  Natural  Selection  according  to  Mr. 
Darwin ;  and  let  but  the  power  competent  to 
do  the  things  which  he  assumes  are  done,  be 
credited  with  sense  enough  to  be  aware  of  its 
competence,  and  it  may  then  be  regarded  as  not 
unlikely  to  have  done  some  of  them  on  purpose. 
Whereupon  the  genesis  of  the  eye  ceases  to  be 
a  mystery.  "  All  the  appearances  of  contrivance 
that  have  resulted  from  the  operation  find  their 
obvious  and  complete  explanation  in  the  as- 
sumption of  a  contriver,  and  all  such  hazy  films 
as  that  of  variability  producing  variation  cease 
to  be  capable  of  serving  as  excuses  for  wilful 
blindness.  And  why  should  not  the  power  in 
question  be  so  credited  ?  Here  is  Mr.  Darwin's 


272  Anima  Mundi. 

solitary  reason  why.  He  doubts  whether  the 
inference  implied  may  not  be  'presumptuous.' 
He  apprehends  that  we  have  no  'right  to 
assume  that  the  Creator  works  by  intellectual 
powers  like  those  of  a  man.'  Truly,  of  all 
suggested  modes  of  marking  respect  for  creative 
power,  that  of  assuming  it  to  have  worked  un- 
intelligently  is  the  most  original."1 

"  From  what  I  know,  through  my  own  speci- 
ality, both  geometry  and  experiment,  of  the 
structure  of  lenses  and  the  human  eye,  I  do  not 
believe  that  any  amount  of  evolution,  extending 
through  any  amount  of  time  consistent  with 
the  requirements  of  our  astronomical  knowledge, 
could  have  issued  in  the  production  of  that 
most  beautiful  and  complicated  instrument,  the 
human  eye.  There  are  too  many  curved  sur- 
faces, too  many  distances,  too  many  densities 
of  the  media,  each  essential  to  the  other,  too 
great  a  facility  of  ruin  by  slight  disarrangement, 
to  admit  of  anything  short  of  the  intervention 
of  an  intelligent  Will  at  some  stage  of  the 
evolutionary  process.  The  most  perfect,  and  at 
the  same  time  the  most  difficult  optical  con- 
trivance known  is  the  powerful  achromatic 
object  glass  of  a  microscope;  its  structure  is 
the  long-unhoped-for  result  of  the  ingenuity  of 

1  Thornton :  "  Old- Fashioned  Ethics,"  pp.  238,  239. 


Scientific  Sophisms.  273 

many  powerful  minds  ;  yet  in  complexity  and  in 
perfection  it  falls  infinitely  below  the  structure 
of  the  eye.  Disarrange  any  one  of  the  curva- 
tures of  the  many  surfaces,  or  distances,  or 
densities  of  the  latter ;  or  worse,  disarrange  its 
incomprehensible  self-adaptive  power,  the  like 
of  which  is  possessed  by  the  handiwork  of 
nothing  human,  and  all  the  opticians  in  the 
world  could  not  tell  you  what  is  the  correlative 
alteration  necessary  to  repair  it,  and  still  less  to 
improve  it,  as  natural  selection  is  presumed  to 
imply.' 

15.  The  case  is  too  strong  to  be  explained 
away.  Nature  is  full  of  plan,  and  yet  she  plans 
not :  she  is  only  plastic  to  a  plan.  That  plan 
carries  with  it  its  own  unanswerable  attestation 
to  all  healthy  understandings.  It  has  its  warp 
indeed,  as  well  as  its  woof.  The  exquisite 
variety  of  creative  adjustments  reposes  on  a 
basis  of  fundamental  order :  exhaustless  speci- 
alities of  adaptation  are  engrafted  on  a  per.vasive 
unity  of  type.  Morphology,  rightly  viewed,  is 
not  the  negation,  but  one  grand  phase  of  the 
revelation  of  plan.  Teleology  is  the  other.  "  It 
has  been  by  following  the  lamp  of  Final  Cause, 
and  obeying  her  beckoning  hand,  that  the 

1  Professor  Pritchard's  .Address  at  the  Brighton  Con- 
gress (1874). 


274  Anima  Mundi. 

masters  of  anatomical  and  physiological  science, 
from  Galen  to  Cuvier,  and  from  Harvey  to 
Owen,  have  been  guided  to  their  splendid  dis- 
coveries." But  the  irrepressible  question,  For 
what  ?  is  naturally  followed  by  the  further  ques- 
tion, From  Whom?  The  measure  of  the  confi- 
dence with  which  Science  assumes  a  use  is  the 
measure  of  the  confidence  with  which  Religion 
affirms  an  Author.  "He  that  planted  the  ear, 
shall  He  not  hear  ?  Or  He  that  made  the  eye, 
shall  He  not  see  ? "  This  argument  has  been 
esteemed  unanswerable,  not  only  by  the  most 
masculine  reasoners  among  Christian  divines, 
Barrow  and  Paley,  Chalmers  and  Whewell :  "  it 
has  carried  conviction,  from  the  time  of  Socrates 
to  that  of  Cuvier,  to  the  foremost  minds  of  the 
human  race,  and  found  almost  its  sole  antago- 
nists among  spinners  of  cobwebs  and  dreamers 
of  dreams.  .  .  .  The  prints  of  Divine  fore- 
thought, and  the  convictions  they  engender,  are 
scattered  over  the  face  of  universal  nature,  and 
ploughed  into  the  very  subsoil  of  the  human 
mind." 

16.  To  conclude.  Modern  Materialism  then, 
as  expounded  by  its  ablest  advocates,  whether 
under  the  guise  of  ^Positive  Agnosticism,  or  that 
of  Scientific  Atheism,  has  no  key  to  unlock  the 


Scientific  Sophisms.  275 

mysteries  of  Being.  Propounded  as  a  theory  of 
the  Universe,  it  has  no  commencement  and  no 
continuity.  There  are  "  First  Beginnings  "  of 
which  it  has  no  knowledge.  There  are  Barriers 
which  it  cannot  pass,  and  chasms  which  it  can- 
not cross,  and  deeps  which  it  cannot  fathom, 
and  mysteries  which  it  cannot  even  pretend  to 
explain.  That  extension  which  we  call  space  ; 
that  duration  which  we  call  time ;  that  sub- 
stance which  we  call  matter ;  whence  came 
they?  "There  shall  be  no  Alps"—?  They 
shall  be  explained  away?  Matter  shall  be 
defined  in  terms  of  Mind  ?  Space  and  Time 
shall  be  declared  non-entities — non-existent 
outside  the  faculties  of  the  Being  percipient  ? l 

But  then  whence  came  this  Being  ?  and 
whence  came  his  faculty  "  percipient "  ?  Matter, 
too,  however  defined,  is  possessed  of  certain 
properties,  and  constituted  in  definite  propor- 
tions, and  specified  in  distinct  categories — car- 
bon, gold,  iodine,  etc., — whence  came  all  these  ? 
Then  too,  besides  material  properties,  there  are 
material  forces.  Heat  is  a  mode  of  motion  ; 
and  motion  is  a  result  of  force;  and  force 
operates  according  to  law.  But  who  ordained 
the  Law  ?  and  who  upholds  it  ?  Who  estab- 
lished "  the  sequence  of  events  as  observed  by 
1  See  Appendix,  Note  G. 


276  Anima  Mundi. 

us  "  ?  Who  originated  Motion  ?  Where  is  the 
primal  Force  ? 

"  We  will  assume  that  science  has  done  its 
utmost ;  and  that  every  chemical  or  animal 
force  is  demonstrably  resolvable  into  heat  or 
motion,  reciprocally  changing  into  each  other. 
I  would  myself  like  better,  in  order  of  thought, 
to  consider  motion  as  a  mode  of  heat  than  heat 
as  a  mode  of  motion  :  still,  granting  that  we 
have  got  thus  far,  we  have  yet  to  ask,  What  is 
heat  ?  or  what  motion  ?  What  is  this  '  primo 
mobile,'  this  transitional  power,  in  which  all 
things  live,,  and  move,  and  have  their  being  ? 
It  is  by  definition  something  different  from 
matter,  and  we  may  call  it  as  we  choose — '  firs* 
cause,'  or  '  first  light,  or  '  first  heat '  ,  but  w<" 
can  show  no  scientific  proof  of  its  not  bein 
personal,  and  coinciding  with  the  ordinary  con- 
ception of  a  supporting  spirit  in  all  things." 1 

M  The  Lord  of  all,  Himself  through  all  diffused, 
Sustains,  and  is  the  life  of  all  that  lives. 
Nature  is  but  a  name  for  an  effect, 
Whose  cause  is  God." 

With  Him  is  the  breath  of  Life.  With  Him  is 
the  secret  of  Power.  This  is  what  men  of 
science  "  are  finding  more  and  more,  below  their 

1  "The  Queen  of  the  Air:"  by  John  Ruskin,  LL.D. 
(1869),  p.  74. 


Scientific  Sophisms.  '  277 

facts,  below  all  phenomena  which  the  scalpel 
and  the  microscope  can  show;  a  something 
nameless,  invisible,  imponderable,  yet  seemingly 
omnipresent  and  omnipotent,  retreating  before 
them  deeper  and  deeper,  the  deeper  they 
delve ;  that  which  the  old  schoolmen  called 
'  forma  formativa,'  the  mystery  of  that  unknown 
and  truly  miraculous  element  in  nature  which 
is  always  escaping  them,  though  they  cannot 
escape  it ;  that  of  which  it  was  written  of  old, 
'Whither  shall  I  go  from  Thy  presence,  or 
whither  shall  I  flee  from  Thy  Spirit  ? '"  * 

17.  Proof?  See  it  in  the  great  gulf  between 
the  organic  and  the  inorganic,  the  living  and 
the  not-living,  a  grain  of  sand  and  a  grain  of 
corn.  See  it  in  the  inscrutable  phenomena  of 
growth.  See  it  in  the  immutable  order  which 
dominates  the  countless  varieties  of  the  vegeta- 
ble world.  Amid  all  those  varieties,  with  their 
corresponding  powers,  it  does  not  matter  in  the 
least  by  what  concurrences  of  circumstance  or 
necessity  they  may  gradually  have  been  de- 
veloped :  the  concurrence  of  circumstance  is 
itself  the  supreme  and  inexplicable  fact.  "  We 
always  come  at  last  to  a  formative  cause,  which 
directs  the  circumstance  and  mode  of  meeting 
1  Canon  Kingsley.  Lecture  at  Sion  College. 


278  Anima  Mundi. 

it  If  you  ask  an  ordinary  botanist  the  reason 
of  the  lorm  of  a  leaf,  he  will  tell  you  it  is  a 
'  developed  tubercle,'  and  that  its  ultimate  form 
'is  owing  to  the  directions  of  its  vascular 
threads.'  But  what  directs  its  vascular  threads? 
'  They  are  seeking  for  something  they  want,' 
he  will  probably  answer.  What  made  them 
want  that  ?  What  made  them  seek  for  it  thus  ? 
Seek  for  it,  in  five  fibres  or  in  three  ?  Seek  for 
it,  in  serration,  or  in  sweeping  curves  ?  Seek 
for  it  in  servile  tendrils,  or  impetuous  spray  ? 
Seek  for  it  in  woollen  wrinkles  rough  with 
stings,  or  in  glossy  surfaces,  green  with  pure 
strength,  and  winterless  delight  ? "  It  is  Mr. 
Ruskin  who  asks  these  questions  :  and  it  is 
Mr.  Ruskin  who  adds,  "  There  is  no  answer."  l 

Then  too  this  leaf,  whatever  its  form,  is  alive. 
It  points,  not  more  to  a  Formative  Cause  than 
to  a  Living  Power.  Polarity  of  atoms,  mole- 
cular movements,  chemical  affinities,  may  be 
adduced  to  explain,  even  while  in  fact  they  con- 
ceal, the  phenomena  of  structure  and  configura- 
tion in  the  inorganic  world.  But  when  the 
chemical  affinities  are  brought  under  the  in- 
fluence of  the  air,  and  of  solar  heat,  the  forma- 
tive force  enters  an  entirely  different  phase. 
"  It  does  not  now  merely  crystallize  indefinite 
1  "  Queen  of  the  Air,"  p.  104. 


Scientific  Sophisms.  279 

masses,  but  it  gives  to  limited  portions  of  matter 
the  power  of  gathering,  selectively,  other  ele- 
ments proper  to  them,  and  binding  these 
elements  into  their  own  peculiar  and  adopted 
form."  But  this  "  power  of  gathering  select- 
ively," the  power  that  catches  out  of  chaos 
charcoal,  water,  lime,  or  what  not,  and  fastens 
them  down  into  a  given  form,  the  power  that  is 
continually  creating  its  own  shells  of  definite 
shape  out  of  the  wreck  round  it, —  What  is  it  ? 
and  Whence  ?  "  There  is  no  answer." 

Next  comes  the  gap  which  separates  vegeta- 
ble from  animal  life.  "  These  are  necessarily 
the  converse  of  each  other,  the  one  deoxidizes 
and  accumulates,  the  other  oxidizes  and  ex- 
pends. Only  in  reproduction  or  decay  does  the 
plant  simulate  the  action  of  the  animal,  and  the 
animal  never,  in  its  simplest  forms,  assumes  the 
tunctions  of  the  plant.  Those  obscure  cases  in 
the  humbler  spheres  of  animal  and  vegetable  life 
which  have  been  supposed  to  show  a  union  of 
the  two  kingdoms,  disappear  on  investigation." 
This  is  the  testimony  of  Principal  Dawson, 
who  adds,  "  This  gap  can,  I  believe,  be  filled  up 
only  by  an  appeal  to  our  ignorance." l 

1  "  Story  of  the  Earth  and  Man."  By  J.  W.  Dawson, 
LL.D.,  F.R.S  ,  F.G.S.,  etc.  Hodder  and  Stoughton,  1873, 
p.  326.  [See  p.  298,  to  which  this  Reference  belongs.] 


280  Anima  Mundi. 

Of  the  chasms  which  separate  species,  the 
same  author  writes, — "  It  was  this  gap,  and  this 
only,  which  Darwin  undertook  to  fill  up  by  his 
great  work  on  the  origin  of  species,  but  not- 
withstanding the  immense  amount  of  material 
thus  expended,  it  yawns  as  wide  as  ever,  since 
it  must  be  admitted  that  no  case  has  been 
ascertained  in  which  an  individual  of  one  species 
has  transgressed  the  limits  between  it  and  other 
species."  l 

Transcending  all  the  rest  is  the  gulf  that 
separates  the  brute  from  man.  It  is  Professor 
Huxley  himself  who  tells  us  that  the  "diver- 
gence of  the  Human  from  the  Simian  Stirps  "  is 
"immeasurable  and  practically  infinite."  Who 
made  it  so  ?  Huxley  believes,  with  Cuvier, 
that  "  the  possession  of  articulate  speech  is  the 
grand  distinctive  character  of  man."  But 
whence  did  he  derive  an  endowment  so  unique 
and  so  invaluable  ?  "  Men  have  words,  which 
are  projected  ideas  ;  brutes  have  only  sounds, 
which  are  projected  sensations.  Brutes  voci- 
ferate :  men  speak.  The  physical  organiza- 
tion is  wedded  to  the  mental  capacity — a  mouth, 
and  wisdom.  Neither,  apart,  would  effloresce 
into  Language  :  both  must  conspire  and  com- 
bine. So  the  one  mind  which  has  thoughts  to 
1  See  Appendix,  Note  H. 


Scientific  Sophisms.  281 

be  interpreted  is  furnished  in  the  human  tongue 
with  an  all-accomplished  interpreter."  But 
whence  came  this  "  one  mind  which  has 
thoughts  to  be  interpreted  "  ? 

What  is  the  origin  of  Mind  ?  What  is  the 
genesis  of  Thought  ? 

1 8.  For  Thought  is  no  mere  "function  of  the 
brain " ;  nor  is  it  "  medullary  matter  that 
thinks."  "  The  function  of  the  lung  is  not  un- 
intelligible ;  it  can  be  followed  throughout,  and 
understood  throughout.  Though  the  peculiar- 
ity of  vitality  mingles  there,  it  can  still,  in  a 
certain  aspect,  be  called  a  physical  function,  and 
its  result  is  of  an  identical  nature.  If,  and 
so  far  as,  the  function  is  physical,  the  result  is 
physical.  So  with  the  stomach  :  function  and 
result  are  there  in  the  same  category  of  being. 
The  livef  is  so  far  a  physical  organ  that  it  can 
be  seen,  it  can  be  touched,  it  can  be  handled  ; 
but  is  it  otherwise  with  the  bile,  which  is  the 
result  of  its  function  ?  Can  it  too,  not  be  seen, 
and  touched,  and  handled  ?  Is  it  not  essentially 
of  the  same  nature  ?  Is  it  not  physical,  in  the 
same  way  and  to  the  same  extent  as  the  liver 
is  physical  ?  But  look  now  to  the  brain,  and 
the  so-called  product  of  its  function.  Do  we 
any  longer  find  the  same  identity  of  the  terms  ? 
No ;  the  terms  there  are  veritable  extremes — 


282  Anima  Mundi. 

extremes  wider  than  the  poles  apart — extremes 
sundered  by  the  whole  diameter  of  being.  The 
result  here,  then,  is  not  like  the  result  of  any 
other  function.  It  is  wholly  unique;  something 
quite  new,  fresh,  and  original ;  something  un- 
precedented, something  unparalleled,  absolutely 
single  and  singular,  absolutely  sui  generis.  The 
result  here  in  fact,  is  the  very  antithesis,  the 
very  counterpart  of  the  organ  which  is  sup- 
posed to  function  it. 

"  An  organ,  after  all,  consists  of  parts ;  but 
thought  has  no  parts,  thought  is  one.  Matter 
has  one  set  of  qualities  ;  Mind,  another ;  and 
these  sets  are  wholly  incommensurable,  wholly 
incommunicable.  A  feeling  is  not  square,  a 
thought  is  not  oval.  .  .  .  No  function  of 
the  body,  and  no  function  of  any  machine  out 
of  the  body,  presents  any  parallel  to  the  nature 
of  thought."  x 

Before  this  problem  of  the  genesis  of 
Thought,  Materialism  is  dumb.  And  yet  this 
same  Thought  ("  without  precedent,"  "  without 
parallel,")  has  changed  the  face  of  the  world. 
"  From  the  moment  when  the  first  skin  was  used 
as  a  covering,  when  the  first  rude  spear  was 
formed  to  assist  in  the  chase,  the  first  seed  sown 

1  Dr.  Stirling's  "  Materialism  in  relation  to  the  Study 
of  Medicine,"  p.  8. 

U 


Scientific  Sophisms.  283 

or  root  planted,  a  grand  revolution  was  effected 
in  nature,  a  revolution  which  in  all  the  previous 
ages  of  the  world's  history  had  had  no  parallel,  for 
a  being  had  arisen  who  was  no  longer  necessarily 
subject  to  change  with  the  changing  universe, — 
a  being  who  was  in  some  degree  superior  to 
nature,  inasmuch  as  he  knew  how  to  control  and 
regulate  her  action,  and  could  keep  himself  in 
harmony  with  her,  not  by  a  change  in  body, 
but  by  an  advance  in  mind. 

"Here  then  we  see  the  true  grandeur  and 
dignity  of  man.  On  this  view  of  his  special 
attributes,  we  may  admit  that  even  those  who 
claim  for  him  a  position  and  an  order,  a  class,  or 
a  sub-kingdom  by  himself,  have  some  reason  on 
their  side.  He  is,  indeed,  a  being  apart,  since 
he  is  not  influenced  by  the  great  laws  which  ir- 
resistibly modify  all  other  organic  beings.  .  .  . 
Man  has  not  only  escaped  '  natural  selection ' 
himself,  but  he  is  actually  able  to  take  away 
some  of  that  power  from  nature  which,  before 
his  appearance,  she  universally  exercised."  * 

Conclusive  as  is  this  testimony  in  itself,  it  is 
doubly  so  on  account  of  the  quarter  from  which 
it  comes.  From  a  very  different  quarter  comes 

1  Mr.  Wallace,  in  the  Anthropological  Review,  May, 
1864. 


284  Anima  Mundi. 

the  characteristic,  but  concurrent  testimony  of 
Thomas  Carlyle : — 

"  Capabilities  there  were  in  me  "  (says  Teufelsdrockh) 
"  to  give  battle,  in  some  small  degree,  against  the  great 
Empire  of  Darkness :  does  not  the  very  Ditcher  and  Delver, 
with  his  spade,  extinguish  many  a  thistle  and  puddle ;  and 
so  leave  a  little  Order,  where  he  found  the  opposite?  Nay, 
your  very  Daymoth  has  capabilities  in  this  kind  ;  and 
ever  organizes  something  (into  its  own  Body,  if  no  other- 
wise), which  was  before  Inorganic  ;  and  of  mute  dead  air 
makes  living  music,  though  only  of  the  faintest,  by  hum- 
ming. 

"How  much  more,  one  whose  capabilities  are  spiritual; 
who  has  learned,  or  begun  learning,  the  grand  thauma- 
turgic  art  of  TTttughtJ  Thaurnaturgic  I  name  it ;  for 
hitherto  all  Miracles  have  been  wrought  thereby,  and 
henceforth  innumerable  will  be  wrought ;  whereof  we, 
even  in  these  days,  witness  some.  Of  the  Poets'  and 
Prophets'  inspired  Message,  and  how  it  makes  and  un- 
makes whole  worlds,  I  shall  forbear  mention  :  but  cannot 
the  dullest  hear  Steam-engines  clanking  around  him?"  J 

What  then,  is  the  origin,  and  who  is  the 
originator  of  "  that  subtle  force  which  we  term 
Mind  "  ? 

19.  Man,  as  defined  by  Professor  Huxley,2  is  "a 
conscious  automaton,"  "endowed  with  free-will"; 
and  in  his  Essay  on  "The  Physical  Basis  of 
Life  "  he  confesses  that  "  our  volition  counts  for 

1  "  Sartor  Resartus,"  chap.  iv. 

3  Fortnightly  Review,  November,  1874,  p,  577. 


Scientific  Sophisms.  285 

something  as  a  condition  of  the  course  of  events  "/ 
and  that  this  "  can  be  verified  experimentally  as 
often  as  we  like  to  try." l  This  machine  which 
is  not  mechanical ;  this  automaton  with  a  will 
of  its  own  ;  this  creature  whose  actions  are  at 
once  automatic  and  autonomic  ;  this  "  automa- 
ton endowed  with  free-will,"  is  a  novel  inven- 
tion quite  worthy  of  Mr.  Huxley's  ingenuity. 
But  whence  did  it  derive  the  faculties  with 
which  he  says  it  is  endowed  ? 

It  is  "  conscious,"  he  tells  us.  And  its 
"  volition  counts  for  something."  What  then  is 
Volition  ?  and  whence  ?  And  what  is  Con- 
sciousness ? 

"  Can  you  satisfy  the  human  understanding 
in  its-  demand  for  logical  continuity  between 
molecular  processes  and  the  phenomena  of 
consciousness  ?  "  It  is  Professor  Tyndall  who 
asks  this  question,  and  his  answer  to  it  is 
this  :— 

"This  is  a  rock  on  which  materialism  must 
inevitably  split  whenever  it  pretends  to  be  a 
complete  philosophy  of  life."  2 

And  with  the  candid  and  elegant  Lucretian, 
Professor  Huxley — notwithstanding  his  material- 
istic declaration  of  faith  in  molecular  machinery 

1  "  Lay  Sermons,"  p.  145. 
*  Belfast  Address. 


286  Anima  Mundi. 

— agrees.  "  What  consciousness  is,"  he  says,  "  we 
know  not ;  and  how  it  is  that  anything  so 
remarkable  as  a  state  of  consciousness  comes 
about  as  the  result  of  irritating  nervous  tissue, 
is  just  as  unaccountable  as  the  appearance  of 
the  Djin  when  Aladdin  rubbed  his  lamp  in  the 
story." l 

"  Afferent  nerves  lie  here,  and  carry  to ; 
efferent  nerves  lie  there,  and  carry  from  ;  but  in 
none  of  them — neither  in  fibre  of  nerve  nor 
in  fibre  of  brain,  will  you  find  any  hint  of 
consciousness.  How  any  material  impressions 
should  awake  thought ;  but,  still  more,  how,  in 
independence  of  all  impressions,  thought  should 
be  all  the  while  there,  alive  and  active,  A  WORLD 
BY  ITSELF — that  is  the  mystery.  And  that  no 
scalpel,  no  microscope,  will  ever  explain. 
Mechanical  balances  the  most  delicate,  chemical 
tests  the  most  sensitive,  are  all  powerless  there. 
And  why  ?  Simply  because  consciousness  and 
they  are  incommensurable,  of  another  nature,  of 
another  world  from  the  first,  sundered  from 
each  other,  as  I  have  said,  by  the  whole 
diameter  of  being."  3 

"  It  is  quite  true  that  the  tympanum  of  the 
ear  vibrates  under  sound,  and  that  the  surface  of 

1  Huxley's  "  Physiology,"  p.  193. 

*  Stirling's  "  Materialism  "  ut  sup.,  p.  7. 


Scientific  Sophisms.  287 

the  water  in  a  ditch  vibrates  too  ;  but  the  ditch 
hears  nothing  for  all  that  ;  and  my  hearing  is 
still  to  me  as  blessed  a  mystery  as  ever,  and  the 
interval  between  the  ditch  and  me,  quite  as 
great  If  the  trembling  sound  in  my  ears  was 
once  of  the  marriage-bell  which  began  my 
happiness,  and  is  now  of  the  passing-bell  which 
ends  it,  the  difference  between  those  two  sounds 
to  me  cannot  be  counted  by  the  number  of' 
concussions.  There  have  been  some  curious 
speculations  lately  as  to  the  conveyance  of 
mental  consciousness  by  '  brain-waves.'  What 
does  it  matter  how  it  is  conveyed  ?  The 
consciousness  itself  is  not  a  wave.  It  may  be 
accompanied  here  or  there  by  any  quantity  of 
quivers  and  shakes,  up  or  down,  of  anything 
you  can  find  in  the  universe  that  is  shakeable — 
what  is  that  to  me  ?  My  friend  is  dead,  and  my 
— according  to  modern  views — vibratory  sorrow 
is  not  one  whit  less,  or  less  mysterious,  to  me, 
than  my  old  quiet  one."  l 

Whence  came  then  this  emergence  of  Per- 
sonal Consciousness  among  the  world  of  living 
creatures  ?  From  what  source  have  we  derived 
that  sense  of  individual  personality  which  con- 
stitutes "an  altogether  new  and  original  fact, 
one  which  cannot  be  conceived  as  developed  or 
1  Ruskin  :  '  Athena,"  p.  70. 


288  Anima  Mundi. 

developable  out  o.  any  pre-existing  phenomena 
or  conditions  "  ?  That  consciousness  of  an  I 
Myseh,  01  Personality,  which  asserts  an  anti- 
thesis between  the  Man,  and  all  that  the  Man 
makes  his  own — whence  came  it,  if  not  irom  that 
Eternal  Consciousness,  that  Divine  Personality 
Who,  when  He  made  us,  made  us  in  His  Own 
image  ? 

20.  Science,  in  the  modern  doctrine  of  the 
Conservation  of  Energy,  and  the  Convertibility  of 
Forces,  insists,  with  increasing  emphasis,  that  all 
kinds  of  Force  are  but  forms  or  manifestations 
01  some  one  Central  Force  issuing  from  some  one 
Fountain-head  of  Power,  Sir  John  Herschel 
has  not  hesitated  to  say,  that  "  it  is  but  reason- 
able to  regard  the  Force  of  Gravitation  as  the 
direct  or  indirect  result  of  a  Consciousness  or  a 
Will  existing  somewhere." l  But  if  for  the 
phenomena  of  the  material  world  you  must 
have  an  external  Will,  how  much  more  for  those 
which  characterize  the  World  of  Mind !  "  A 
will  that  hangs  by  the  Central  Will  "  is  in- 
telligible :  but,  refuse  to  recognise  that  Central 
Will,  and  then  how  can  you  account  for  that 
"  lord  paramount,"  the  Human  Will  ? 

"  Two  things,"  said  Immanuel  Kant,  "  are 
awful  to  me  :  the  starry  firmament,  and  the 

1  "Outlines  of  Astronomy."    Fifth  Edition,  p.  291. 


Scientific  Sophisms.  289 

sense  of  Responsibility  in  Man."  And  again  : 
"  Duty !  wondrous  thought,  that  workest  neither 
by  fond  insinuation,  flattery,  nor  by  any 
threat,  but  merely  by  holding  up  thy  naked 
'law  in  the  soul,'  and  so  extorting  for  thyself 
always  reverence,  if  not  always  obedience; 
before  whom  all  appetites  are  dumb,  however 
secretly  they  rebel ;  WHENCE  THY  ORIGINAL  ? " 

Enough.  Nature  is  a  hierarchy,  and  the 
head  is  Man.  "  Mind,  language,  civilization, 
worship — the  will  to  determine,  the  tongue  to 
speak,  the  hand  to  do — these,  in  their  boundless 
purport,  are  all  awanting  till  the  Creator  plants 
upon  the  scene  the  solitary  owner  of  the  Perfect 
Brain.  Named  in  one  word,  all  these  are 
wisdom;  and  Man,  '  thinker  of  God's  thoughts 
after  Him/  is,  among  uncounted  myriads  of 
lower  existences,  on  this  earth  the  Only 
Wise."  l 

"  This  universe  is  not  an  accidental  cavity,  in 
which  an  accidental  dust  has  been  accidentally 
swept  into  heaps  for  the  accidental  evolution 
of  the  majestic  spectacle  of  organic  and  in- 
organic life.  That  majestic  spectacle  is  a 
spectacle  as  plainly  for  the  eye  of  reason  as  any 

1  "The  Three  Barriers,"  p.  96. 


29°  Anima  Mundi. 

diagram  of  mathematic.  That  majestic  spec- 
tacle could  have  been  constructed,  was  con- 
structed, only  in  reason,  for  reason,  and  by 
reason.  From  beyond  Orion  and  the  Pleiades, 
across  the  green  hem  of  earth,  up  to  the  im- 
perial personality  of  man,  all,  the  furthest,  the 
deadest,  the  dustiest,  is  for  fusion  in  the  invisible 
point  of  the  single  Ego — which  alone  glorifies  it. 
For  the  subject,  and  on  the  model  of  the  subject, 
all  is  made."  * 

"  But  the  stone  doth  not  deliberate  whether 
it  shall  descend,  nor  the  wheat  take  counsel 
whether  or  not  it  shall  grow.  Even  men  dc 
not  advise  how  their  hearts  shall  beat,  though 
without  that  pulse  they  cannot  live.  What  then 
can  be  more  clear  than  that  those  natural  agents 
which  work  constantly,  for  tliose  ends  which  they 
themselves  cannot  perceive,  must  be  directed  by 
some  high  and  over-ruling  wisdom,  and  who  is 
that  but  the  great  Artificer  who  works  in  all  of 
them  ?  .  .  .  For,  as  '  every  house  is  builded 
by  some  man,'  and  the  earth  bears  no  such 
creature  of  itself;  stones  do  not  grow  into  a  wall, 
or  first  hew  and  square,  then  unite  and  fasten 
themselves  together ;  trees  sprout  not  cross 
like  dry  and  sapless  beams,  nor  spars  and  tiles 

1  "  As  Regards  Protoplasm,"  p.  37. 


Scientific  Sophisms.  291 

arrange  themselves  into  a  roof ;  as  these  are  the 
supplies  of  art,  and  testimonies  to  the  under- 
standing of  man,  the  great  artificer  on  earth,  so 
is  the  world  itself  but  a  house,  the  habitation 
and  the  handiwork  of  an  Infinite  Intelligence, 
and  '  He  who  built  all  things  is  GOD.'  "  * 

a    17   86^a   64?   TOU?   atwi/a?    TWV   alwvwv.     a/j,r}v. 

1  Pearson  :  "  On  the  Creed,"  Art  I.     Vide  in/rd,  Ap- 
pendix, Note  K. 


APPENDIX. 


NOTE  A.    PAGE  5. 
CHORUS. 

a. 

Life  and  the  universe  show  spontaneity  : 
Down  with  ridiculous  notions  of  Deity 
Churches  and  creeds  are  all  lost  in  the  mists 
Truth  must  be  sought  with  the  Positivists. 


If  you  are  pious  (mild  form  of  insanity), 

Bow  down  and  worship  the  mass  of  Humanity. 

Other  religions  are  buried  in  mists, 

We  're  our  own  Gods,  say  the  Positivists. 

EUELPIDES. 

These  Positivists  are  very  positive. 

PEISTHETAIRUS. 

And  very  negative  too.     I  can't  agree 
With  folk  who  fancy  they're  their  own  creators. 

"  The  British  Birds.    By  the  Ghost  of  Aristophanes," 
(Mortimer  Collins),  1872.    P.  47,  et  seq. 


294  Appendix. 

NOTE  B.    PAGE  27. 

In  the  Third  Edition  of  his  "  First  Principles"  (Stereo- 
typed), Mr.  Spencer,  concluding  his  observations  on  this 
topic,  says, — "  From  the  remotest  past  which  Science 
can  fathom,  up  to  the  novelties  of  yesterday,  an  essential 
trait  of  Evolution  has  been  the  transformation  of  the 
homogeneous  into  the  heterogeneous."  And  his  last 
word  on  the  subject  is  this  : — 

"  As  we  now  understand  it,  Evolution  is  definable  as 
a  change  from  an  incoherent  homogeneity  to  a  coherent 
heterogeneity,  accompanying'  the  dissipation  of  motion 
and  integration  of  matter." — Pp.  359,  360. 


NOTE  C.    PAGES  175  and  214. 

Lawrence,  who  quotes  in  confirmation  the  words  of 
Cuvier,  thus  concludes  his  disquisition  on  the  subject : — 
"  We  may  conclude,  then,  from  a  general  review  of  the 
preceding  facts,  that  nature  has  provided,  by  the  INSUR- 
MOUNTABLE BARRIER  of  instinctive  aversion,  of  sterility 
in  the  hybrid  offspring,  and  in  the  allotment  of  species 
to  different  parts  of  the  earth,  against  any  corruption 
or  change  of  species  in  wild  animals.  We  must  therefore 
admit,  for  all  the  species  which  we  know  at  present,  as 
sufficiently  distinct  and  constant,  a  distinct  origin  and 
common  date." — Lectures  on  Physiology.  First  Edition. 
P.  261. 

Cuvier  had  previously  said, — "  La  nature  a  soin  d'em- 
pecher  1'alteration  des  especes,  qui  pourroit  rdsulter  de 
leur  melange,  par  1'a version  mutuelle  qu'elle  leur  a  donnde : 
il  faut  toutes  les  ruses,  toute  la  contrainte  de  1'homme 
pour  faire  contracter  ces  unions,  meme  aux  especes  qui  se 
ressemblent  le  plus  .  .  .  aussi  ne  voyons  nous  pas 
dans  nos  bois  d'individus  intermediaires  entre  le  lievre 


Appendix.  295 

et  le  lapin,  entre  le  cerf  et  le  daim,  entre  la  marte  et  la 
fouine?" — Discours  Preliminaire.  P.  76.  (See  also  P.  71). 
And  subsequently,  M.  Flourens, — "  II  y  a  deux  5arac- 
teres  qui  font  juger  de  1'espece :  la  forme,  comme  dit 
M.  Darwin,  ou  la  ressemSlance,  et  le  ftconditt.  Mais  il 
y  a  loiigtemps  que  j'ai  fait  voir  que  la  ressemblance,  la 
forme,  n'est  qu'un  caractere  accessoire  :  le  seul  caractire 
essentiel  est  la  FECONDITE.  .  .  .  L'espece  est  d'une 
ficonditt  continue,  et  toutes  les  varie'te's  sont  entre  elles 
d'une  ftconditt  continue,  ce  qui  prouve  qu'elles  ne  sont 
pas  sorties  de  1'espece,  qu'elles  restent  espece  qu'elle  ne 
sont  que  1'espece,  qui  s'est  diversement  nuancde.  Au 
contraire,  les  especes  sont  distinctes  entre  elles,  par  la 
raison  decisive,  qu'il  n'y  a  entre  elles  qu'une  fe'condite' 
born^e.  J'ai  de*ja  dit  cela,  mais  je  ne  saurais  trop  le 
redire." — "  Examen  du  Livre  de  M.  Darwin,  Sur  FOri~ 
gine,"  etc.  Pp.  34-36. 

NOTE  D.    PAGE  221. 

M  There  was  an  APE  in  the  days  that  were  earlier 
Centuries  passed,  and  his  hair  became  curlier ; 
Centuries  more  gave  a  thumb  toJLiis  wrist — 
Then  he  was  MAN,  and  a  Positivist." 

I"  The  British  Birds,"  ut  sup.,  p.  48.) 

NOTE  E.    PAGE  221. 

"n.  Now  these  are  the  generations  of  the  higher 
vertebrata.  In  the  cosmic  period  the  Unknowable  evo- 
luted  the  bipedal  mammalia. 

12.  And  every  man  of  the  earth  while  he  was  yet  a 
monkey,  and  the  horse  while  he  was  a  hipparion,  and  the 
hipparion  before  he  was  an  oredon. 

13.  Out  of  the  ascidian  came  the  amphibian  and  begat 


296  Appendix. 

the  pentadactyle ;  and  the  pentadactyle  by  inheritance 
and  selection  produced  the  hylobate,  from  which  are  the 
simiadae  in  all  their  tribes. 

14.  And  out  of  the  simiadae  the  lemur  prevailed  above 
his  fellows,  and  produced  the  platyrhine  monkey. 

15.  And  the  platyrhine  begat  the  catarrhine,  and  the 
catarrhine  monkey  begat  the  anthropoid  ape,  and  the  ape 
begat  the  longimanous  orang,  and  the  orang  begat  the 
chimpanzee,  and  the  chimpanzee  evoluted  the  what-is-iL 

1 6.  And  the  what-is-it  went  into  the  land  of  Nod  and 
took  him  a  wife  of  the  longimanous  gibbons.  . 

17.  And  in  process  of  the  cosmic  period  were  born 
unto  them  and  their  children  the  anthropomorphic  prim- 
ordial types. 

18.  The  homunculus,  the  prognathus,  the  troglodyte, 
the  autochthon,  the  terragen  : — these  are  the  generations 
of  primeval  man." — The  New  Cosmogony. 


NOTE  F.     PAGE  223. 

" '  Will  you  have  why  and  wherefore,  and  the  fact 
Made  plain  as  pikestaff?'  modern  Science  asks. 
'  That  mass  man  sprung  from  was  a  jelly-lump 
Once  on  a  time  ;  he  kept  an  after  course 
Through  fish  and  insect,  reptile,  bird  and  beast, 
Till  he  attained  to  be  an  ape  at  last 
Or  last  but  one.' " 

"  Prince  Hohenstiel-Schwangau  :  Saviour  of  Society." 
By  Robert  Browning.     Smith,  Elder  &  Co.,  1871.*  P.  68. 

NOTE  G.     PAGE  282. 

"  Except  by  neglecting  to  distinguish  between  sight  and 
hearing,  the  effects,  and  light  and  sound,  their  respective 


Appendix.  297 

causes,  it  would  surely  have  been  impossible  for  Professor 
Huxley  to  come  to  the  strange  conclusion  that  if  all  living 
beings  were  blind  and  deaf,  '  darkness  and  silence  would 
everywhere  reign.'  Had  he  not  himself  previously  ex- 
plained that  light  and  sound  are  peculiar  motions  com- 
municated to  the  vibrating  particles  of  an  universally 
diffused  ether,  which  motions,  on  reaching  the  eye  or 
ear,  produce  impressions  which,  after  various  modifica- 
tions, result  eventually  in  seeing  or  hearing?  How  these 
motions  are  communicated  to  the  ether  matters  not. 
Only  it  is  indispensable  to  note  that  they  are  not  com- 
municated by  the  percipient  owner  of  the  eye  or  ear,  so 
that  the  fact  of  there  being  no  percipient  present  cannot 
possibly  furnish  any  reason  why  the  motions  should  not 
go  on  all  the  same. 

"  But  as  long  as  they  did  go  on  there  would  necessarily 
be  light  and  sound  ;  for  the  motions  are  themselves  light 
and  sound.  If,  on  returning  to  his  study  in  which,  an 
hour  before,  he  had  left  a  candle  burning  and  a  clock 
ticking,  Professor  Huxley  should  perceive  from  the  ap- 
pearance of  candle  and  clock  that  they  had  gone  on 
burning  and  ticking  during  his  absence,  would  he  doubt 
that  they  had  likewise  gone  on  producing  the  motions 
constituting  and  termed  light  and  sound,  notwithstanding' 
that  no  eyes  or  ears  had  been  present  to  see  or  hear? 
But  if  he  did  not  doubt  this,  how  could  he  any  more 
doubt  that,  although  all  sentient  creatures  suddenly  be- 
came eyeless  and  earless,  the  sun  might  go  on  shining, 
and  the  wind  roaring,  and  the  sea  bellowing  as  before?" 
— Thornton's  "Huxley ism? 

NOTE  H.     PAGE  287. 

It  is  important  to  observe  that  not  a  few  of  those  who 
strenuously  maintain  a  doctrine  of  Evolution,  (though  not 
Mr.  Darwin's  doctrine,)  not  a  few  even  of  Mr.  Darwin's 

X 


298  Appendix. 

most  ardent  admirers,  maintain  at  the  same  time  and  not 
less  strenuously,  that  the  facts  in  relation  to  that  theory 
are  altogether  inexplicable,  apart  from  the  recognition  of 
an  Intelligent  Designer,  a  presiding  Mind,  a  Universal 
Power,  creative,  formative,  sustaining. 

Thus,  for  instance,  Mr. 'Thornton,  while  eulogizing  what 
he  calls  "the  soundness  of  all  the  main  and  really  essential 
principles  of  Darwinism,"  exposes  with  just  severity  the 
incompetence  and  inadequacy  of  the  theories  adopted — 
and  necessarily  adopted — by  those  Ideologists  who  reject 
teleology. 

When  Mr.  Darwin  attempts  to  account  for  Instinct  by 
hypothecating  the  accumulation  of  slight  variations  from 
a  primordial  type — "variations  produced  by  the  same  un- 
known causes  as  those  which  produce  slight  deviations  of 
bodily  structure," — Mr.  Thornton  replies :  "  But  here  I  am 
once  more  compelled  to  join  issue  with  him.  Of  the 
causes  which  he  styles  unknown,  I  maintain  that  we  know 
at  least  thus  much— either  they  are  themselves  intelligent 
forces,  or  they  are  forces  acting  under  intelligent  direction  ; 
and.  in  support  of  this  proposition  I  need  not  perhaps  do 
more  than  show  from  Mr.  Darwin's  example  what  infinitely 
harder  things  must  be  accepted  by  those  who  decline  to 
accept  this." 

Having  done  this  most  elaborately,  and  conceded  the 
long  list  of  "admissions"  for  which  "  not  a  little  liberality 
is  required,"  he  thus  concludes  : — 

"  Let  us,  however,  liberally  waive  this  and  all  similar  objections, 
and  assume  a  community  of  hive  bees  to  have  been,  in  the  utterly 
unaccountable  manner  indicated  by  the  term  spontaneous  variation, 
developed  from  a  meliponish  stock.  Unfortunately,  all  our  liberality 
will  be  found  to  have  been  thrown  away  without  perceptibly  simpli- 
fying the  problem  to  be  solved.  For  whatever  be  among  meliponae 
the  distribution  of  the  generative  capacities,  among  hive  bees,  at  any 
rate,  all  workers  are  sterile  neuters,  which  never  have  any  offspring 
to  whom  to  bequeath  their  cell-making  skill,  while  the  queen-bee  and 
drones,  which  alone  can  become  parents,  have  no  such,  skill  to  be- 


Appendix.  299 

queath.  Clearly,  the  formula  of  'descent  with  modification  by 
natural  selection,'  is,  in  its  literal  sense,  utterly  inapplicable  here.  In 
whatever  manner  the  cell-making  faculty  might  have  been  acquired 
by  the  first  homogeneous  swarm  of  hive  bees,  it  must  inevitably  have 
terminated  with  the  generation  with  which  it  commenced,  if  trans- 
nvssion  by  direct  descent  had  been  necessary  for  its  continuance. 
The  only  resource  open  to  Mr.  Darwin  is  to  suppose  not  merely 
(what  is  indeed,  obviously  the  fact)  that  queen-bee  after  queen-bee, 
besides  generating  each  in  turn  a  progeny  of  workers  endowed  with 
instincts  which  their  parents  did  not  possess  and  could  not  therefore 
impart,  generated  also  princess-bees  destined  in  due  season  to  gene- 
rate a  working  progeny  similarly  endowed  with  instincts  underived 
from  their  parents  ;  but  to  suppose,  further,  that  all  this  has  hap- 
pened in  the  total  absence  of  aim,  object,  intention,  or  design. 

"Now  that  all  this  should  have  so  happened,  although  not  abso- 
lutely inconceivable  ;  nor,  therefore,  absolutely  impossible,  is  surely 
too  incredible  to  be  believed  except  in  despair  of  some  other  hypo- 
thesis a  trifle  less  preposterous.  It  is  surely  not  worth  while  to  set 
the  doctrine  01  probabilities  so  completely  at  naught,  for  the  sake  of 

AN  EXPLANATION   WHICH  AVOWEDLY  LEAVES  EVERY  DIFFICULTY 

UNEXPLAINED,  referring  them  all  to  causes  not  simply  unknown 
but  unconjecturable. 

"What  excuse  then  have  philosophers,  of  all  people,  for  doing 
this  in  preference  to  the  simple  expedient  of  supposing  that,  although 
the  parturient  bee,  queen  o.  other,  cannot  intend  that  any  of  her 
progeny  should  be  more  bounteously  endowed  than  herself,  '  there 
is  AN  INDEPENDENT  INTELLIGENCE  that  does  so  intend T  "—"  Re- 
cent Phases  ot  Scientific  Atheism." 


NOTE  J     PAGE  190. 

THE  FINE  OLD  ATOM  MOLECULE. 

AlR.—"  The  Fine  O  id  English  Gentleman." 

(To  be  sutig  at  all  gatherings  Oj  advanced  Sciolists  and 
Scientists.) 

We'll  sing  you  a  grand  new  song,  evolved  from  a  'cute 

young  pate, 
Of  a  fine  old  Atom-Molecule  of  prehistoric  date, 


300  Appendix. 

In  size  infinitesimal,  in  potencies  though  great, 
And  self-formed  for  developing  at  a  prodigious  rate- 
Like  a  fine  old  Atom-Molecule, 
Of  the  young  World's  proto-prime  ! 

In  it  slept  all  the  forces  in  our  cosmos  that  run  rife, 
To  stir  Creation's  giants  or  its  microscopic  life  ; 
Harmonious  in  discord,  and  cooperant  in  strife, 
To  this  small  cell  committed,  the  World  lived  with  his 
Wife— 

In  this  fine  old  Atom-Molecule, 

Of  the  young  World's  proto-prime  ! 

In  this  autoplastic  archetype  of  Protean  protein  lay 

All  the  humans  Space  has  room  for,  or  for  whom  Time 

makes  a  day, 

From  the'Sage  whose  words  of  wisdom  Prince  or  Parlia- 
ment obey, 

To  the  Parrots  who  but  prattle,  and  the  Asses  who  but 
bray- 
So  full  was  this  Atom-Molecule, 
Of  the  young  World's  proto-prime  ! 

All  brute-life,  from  Lamb  to  Lion,  from  the  Serpent  to 
the  Dove, 

All  that  pains  the  sense  or  pleases,  all  the  heart  can 
loathe  or  love, 

All  instincts  that  drag  downwards,  all  desires  that  up- 
wards move, 

Were  caged,  a  "  happy  family,"  cheek-by-jowl  and  hand- 
in-glove, 

In  this  fine  old  Atom-Molecule, 
Of  the  young  World's  proto-prime  ! 

In  it  Order  grew  from  Chaos,   Light    out  of  Darkness 

shined, 
Design  sprang  up  by  Accident,  Law's  rule  from  Hazard 

blind, 


Appendix.  30 1 

The  Soul-less  Soul  evolving — against,  not  after,  kind — 
As  the  Life- less  Life  developed,  and  the  Mind-less  ripened 
Mind, 

In  this  fine  old  Atom- Molecule, 

Of  the  young  World's  proto-prime  I 

Then  bow  down,  Mind,  to  Matter ;  from  brain-fibre,  Will, 

•withdraw ; 
Fall  Man's  heart  to  cell  Ascidian,  sink  Man's  hand  to 

Monkey's  paw  ; 

And  bend  the  knee  to  Protoplast  in  philosophic  awe — 
Both  Creator  and  Created,  at  once  work  and  source  of 
Law, 

And  our  Lord  be  the  Atom- Molecule, 
Of  the  young  World's  proto-prime  1 

Punch. 

NOTE  K.    PAGE  298. 

While  these  latter  sheets  are  passing  through  the  press, 
there  appears  in  The  World,  the  paragraph  here  sub- 
joined ;  a  paragraph  interesting  and  important  under  any 
circumstances,  but  under  existing  circumstances,  doubly 
so. 

"Frank  Buckland  died  on  the  igth  ultimo  [*.<?.,  Dec. 
1880],  working  to  the  last.  Two  days  before  (on  the 
1 7th),  he  finished  the  preface  to  his  latest  book,  the 
Natural  History  of  British  Fishes.  From  early  sheets 
of  that  preface,  I  make  the  following  extract,  in  which 
the  dying  man— evidently,  from  the  context,  not  then 
knowing  himself  dying — makes  a  declaration  of  belief 
which  is  wholly  antagonistic  to  the  theories  of  Darwin 
and  his  school : — 

"  '  I  have  another  object  in  writing  this  book  ;  it  is  to 
endeavour  to  show  the  truth  of  the  good  old  doctrines  of 
the  Bridgewater  Treatises,  which  have  so  ably  demon- 


3O2  Appendix. 

strated  the  "  power \  wisdom,  and  goodness  of  God,  as 
manifested  in  the  Creation"  Of  late  years  the  doctrines 
of  so-called  "Evolution"  and  "Development,"  have  seem- 
ingly gained  ground  amongst  those  interested  in  natural 
history ;  but  I  have  too  much  faith  in  the  good  sense 
and  natural  acumen  of  my  fellow  countrymen  to  think 
that  these  tenets  will  be  very  long-lived.  To  put 
matters  very  straight,  I  steadfastly  believe  that  the  Great 
Creator,  as  indeed  we  are  directly  told,  made  all  things 
perfect  and  "  very  good "  from  the  beginning ;  perfect 
and  very  good  every  created  thing  is  now  found  to  be, 
and  will  so  continue  to  the  end  of  time.' " 


M.B.B., 


303 

IB  o  o  ;KL  s    i  uxr 

THE  STANDARD  LIBRARY. 

THEIR    STERLING    WORTH. 

OF    OJRITICS. 


Life  of  Cromwell. 


NEW  YORK  SUN: 

"  Mr.  Hood's  biography  is  a  positive 
boon  to  tue  mass  of  readers,  because  it 
present  a  more  correct  view  of  the  great 
soldi'?:  Utan  any  of  the  shorter  lives 
pub'l-.Juil,  whether  we  compare  it  with 
South'.'.y'a,  Guizot's,  or  even  Forster's." 

FACIFIC     CHURCHMAN,    San 

Francisco : 

"  The  fairest  and  most  readable  of  the 
numerous  biographies  of  Cromwell." 
GOOD  LITERATURE,  New  York  : 

"  If  all  these  books  will  prove  as  fresh 
and  readable  as  Hood's  '  Cromwell,'  the 
literary  merit  of  the  series  will  be  as  high 
as  the  price  is  low." 
NEW  YORK  DAILY  GRAPH- 
IC: 

"Hood's  '  Cromwell' is  an  excellent 
account  of  the  great  Protector.  Crom- 
well was  the  heroic  servant  of  a  sublime 
cause.  A  complete  sketch  of  the  man 
and  the  period." 
CHRISTIAN  UNION,  New  York  : 

"A  vajuable  biography  of  Cromwell, 
told  with  interest  in  every  part  and  with 
such  condensation  and  skill  in  arrange- 
ment that  prominent  events  arc  made 
clear  to  all." 


SCHOOL  JOURNAL,  New  York: 
"Mr.  Hood's  style  is  pleasant,  clear, 
and  flowing,  and  he  sets  forth  and  holds  . 
his  own  opinion  well." 

EPISCOPAL  RECORDER,  Phil- 

adelphia : 

"An  admirable  and  able  Life  of  Oli- 
ver Cromwell,  of  which  we  can  unhesi- 
tatingly speak  words  of  praise." 

NEW  YORK  TELEGRAM: 

"Full  of  the  kind  of  information  with 
which  even  the  well-read  like  to  refresh 
themselves." 

INDIANAPOLIS      SENTINEL, 

Ind.  : 

"The  book  is  one  of  deep  interest. 
The  style  is  good,  the  analysis  searching, 
aiuLwittadd  much  to  the  author's  fame 
as  an  able  biographer." 

THE  WORKMAN,  Pittsburgh,  Pa. : 
"  This  book  tells  the  story  of  Crom- 
well's life  in  a  captivating  way.  It  reads 
like  a  romance.  The  paper  and  print- 
ing arc  very  attractive." 

NEW  YORK  HERALD  : 

"  The  book  is  one  of  deep  interest. 
The  style  is  good,  the  analysis  search- 
ing." 


II. 


Science  in  Short  Chapters. 


JOURNAL     Of     EDUCATION, 

Boston  : 

"  '  Science  in  Short  Chapters '  supplies 
a  growing  want  among  a  large  class  of 


bnsy  people,  who  havo  not  time  to  con- 
sult scientific  treatises.  Written  in  clear 
and  simple  style.  Very  interesting  and 
instructive." 


101 


ACADEMY,  London,  England  : 

"Mr.  Williams  has  presented  these 
scientific  subjects  to  the  popular  mind 
with  much  clearness  and  force.  It  may 
be  read  with  advantage  by  those  without 
special  scientific  training.'' 
RELIGIOUS  TJELESCOPJS,Vay- 

ton,  Ohio : 

"  It  is  historic,  scientific,  and  racy.  A 
book  of  intense  practical  thought,  which 
one  wishes  to  read  carefully  and  then 
read  again." 

NEW    YORK    SCHOOL    JOUR- 
NAL: 

"A  volume  of  handy  science,  not 
only  interesting  as  an  abstract  subject, 
but  valuable  for  its  clear  expositions  of 
every-day  science.  Of  Professor  Will- 
iams as  an  authority  upon  such  subjects, 
it  is  unnecessary  to  comment.  He  al- 
ready has  a  fame  as  a  scientific  writer 
which  needs  no  recommendation." 
FALL  MALL  GAZETTEflMndon, 
England : 

"  Original  and  of  scientific  value." 


GRAPHIC.  London  : 

'•  Clear,  simple,  and  profitable." 
CA  NA  D  I    JlAf  TIST,  Toron  to  : 

"  A  rich  book  at  a  marvellously  lovr 
price.  The  style  is  sprightly  and  sim- 
plu.  Every  chapter  contains  something 
we  all  want  to  know." 

NEWARK     DAILY    ADVER- 
TISEII,  N.  J.: 

"  As  an  educator  this  book  is  worth  & 
year's  schooling,  and  it  will  go  where 
schools  of  a  hii;h  grade  cannot  penetrate. 
For  such  a  book  twenty-five  cents  seems 
a  ridiculous  sum." 

J.    W.    BASUFORD,    Auburndale, 
Mass.  : 

"A  marvellous  book,  as  fascinating  as 
Dickens,  to  be  consulted  as  an  authority 
along  with  Britunuica,  and  even  fuller 
of  practical  hints  than  the  latter's  ar- 
ticles. Id)  not  know  how  you  can 
print  its  300  pages  for  25  cents." 
AMERICAN,  Philadelphia: 

"Mr.  Williams'  work  is  a  practic&I 
compendium." 


III. 


COMMERCIAL  GAZETTE,  Cin- 
cinnati, Ohio: 

"  It  is  finely  critical  and  appreciative  ; 
exceedingly  crisp  and  unusually  enter- 
taining from  first  to  last." 
CHRISTIAN  INTELLIGEN- 
CER, New  York  : 

"A  book  of  pleasant  reading,  with 
enough  sparkle  in  it  to  cure  any  ono  of 
the  blues." 

CONGREGATIONALIST,    Bos- 
ton : 

"  They  are  based  upon  considerable 
study  of  these  authors,  are  highly  ap- 
ve  iu  tone,  and  show  a  percep- 
tivity of  American  humor  which  is  yet  a 
rarity  -imong  Enirlii-hmcn." 
SALEM  TIMES,  Mass.: 

"Xo  writer  in  England  was,  in  all 
respects,  better  qualified  to  wri'e  a  book 
on  American  Humorists  than  Ilaweia." 


CHRISTIAN   JOURNAL,  To- 
ronto : 

"We  have  been  specially  amused  with 
the  chapter  on  poor  Artemns  Ward, 
which  we  read  on  a  railway  journey. 
We  fear  our  ftllow-passengers  would 
think  something  ailed  us,  for  laugh  we 
did,  in  spite  of  all  attempts  to  preserve 
a  sedate  appearance.'1 
OCCIDENT,  San  Francisco  : 

"This  book  is  pleasant  readmit,  with 
sparkle  enough  in  it— as  the  writer  is  him- 
self a  wit — to  cure  one  of  the  'blues.'  " 
DA  \JiURY   NEWS,  Conn.: 

"Mr.  Ilaweis  gives  a  brief  bibliograph- 
ical sketch  of  each  writer  mentioned  in 
the  book,  an  analysis  of  his  style,  and 
classifies  each  into  a  distinct  type  from 
the  others.  He  presents  copious  ex- 
tracts from  their  works,  making  an  en- 
tertaining book." 


305 


CENTRAL  BAPTIST,  St.  Louis  : 

"  A  perusal  of  this  volume  will  give  the 
reader  a  more  correct  idea  of  the  charac- 
ter discussed  than  he  would  probably 
get  from  reading  their  biographies.  The 
lecture  is  analytical,  penetrative,  terse, 
incisive,  and  candid.  The  book  is  worth 
its  price,  and  will  amply  repay  reading." 

SCHOOL  JOURNAL,  New  York  : 
"Torse  and  brief  as  the  soul  of  wit 
itself." 

INDIANAPOLIS  SENTINEL, 

Indiana : 

"It  presents,  in  fine  setting,  the  wit 
and  wisdom  of  Washington  Irving,  Oliver 
W.  Holmes,  James  R.  Lowell,  Artemus 
Ward,  Mark  Twain,  and  Bret  Uarte,  and 
does  it  con  amor^s." 


THE  MAIL,  Toronto,  Out.: 

"Rev.  H.  R.  Haweis  is  a  writer  too 
well-known  to  need  commendation  at 
onr  hands  for,  at  least,  his  literary  stylo. 
The  general  result  is  that  not  a  page  re- 
pels us  and  not  a  sentence  tires.  We 
find  ourselves  drawn  pleasantly  along  in 
just  the  way  we  want  to  go;  all  our 
favorite  points  remembered,  all  our  own 
pet  phrases  praised,  and  the  good  things 
of  each  writer  brought  forward  to  re- 
fresh one's  memory.  In  fine,  the  book 
is  a  most  agreeable  companion." 
LUTHERAN  OBSER  VER,  Phila- 
delphia : 

"  The  peculiar  style,  the  mental  char- 
acter, and  the  secret  of  success,  of  each 
of  these  prominent  writers,  arc  presented 
with  great  clearness  and  discrimination." 


IV. 


Lives  of  Illustrious  Shoemakers. 


WESTERN     CHRISTIAN    AD- 
VOC AT f,  Cincinnati: 

"When  we  first  took  np  this  volume 
we  were  surprised  that  anybody  should 
attempt  to  make  a  book  with  precisely 
this  form  and  title.  But  as  we  rend  its 
p^ges  we  were  far  more  surprised  to 
find  them  replete  with  interest  and  in- 
struction. It  should  be  sold  by  the 
scores  of  thousands.1' 
fR  ESB YTEKIAN  OBSER  VER, 
Baltimore  : 

"  The  writer  of  this  book  well  under- 
stands how  to  write  biography— a  gift 
vouchsafed  only  to  a  few." 
NEW  YORK  HERALD: 

"  The  sons  of  Si.  Crispin  havo  always 
been  noted  for  independence  of  thought 
in  politics  and  in  religion ;  and  Mr. 
Winks  has  written  a  very  readable  ac- 
count of  the  lives  of  the  more  famous  of 
the  craft.  The  book  is  quite  interest- 
ing." 

D  ANBURY  NEWS,  Conn.  : 

''•The  STANDARD  LIBRARY  has  been 
enriched  by  this  addition." 


LITERARY  WORLD,  London  : 

"  The  pages  contain  a  great  deal  of  in- 
teresting material— remarkable  episodes 
of  experience  and  history." 
BOSTON  GLOBE: 

"  A  valuable  book,  containing  mnch  in- 
teresting matter  and  an  encouragement 
to  self-help." 

CHRISTIAN  STANDARD,   Cin- 
cinnati : 

"  It  will  inspire  a  noble  ambition,  and 
may  redeem  many  a  life  from  failure." 
CHRISTIA  ff  SECRETARY,  Uart- 
ford,  Conn.  : 

"  Written  in  a  sprightly  and  popular 
manner.     Full  of  interest." 
EVA  NGELICAL  MESSENGER, 
Cleveland  : 

"Everybody  can  read  the  bonk  with 
interest,  but  the  young  will  be  specially 
profited  by  its  perusal." 
LEICESTER  CHRONICLE, Ecg- 
land  : 

"  A  work  of  the  deepest  interest  anf 
of  singular  ability." 


306 


COMMERCIAL  GAZETTE,  Cin- 
cinnati : 

"One  of  the  most  popular  books  pub- 
lished lately." 

CENTRAL    METHODIST,    Ken- 
tucky : 

"  This  is  a  choice  work— full  of  fact 
and  biography.  It  will  be  read  with  in- 
terest, more  especially  by  that  large 
c'aes  whose  awl  and  hammer  provide  the 
human  family  with  soles  for  their  feet." 


THE  WESTERN  MAIL,  England  : 
41  Written  with  taste  and  tact,  in  a 
graceful,  easy  style.    A  book  most  in- 
teresting to  youth." 

CHRISTIAN   GUARDIAN,    To- 
ronto : 

"  It  is  a  capital  book." 
EVANGELICAL     CHURCH- 

MAN,  Toronto : 

"This   is   a   most  interesting  b»ok, 
written  in  a  very  popular  style." 


V. 


Flotsam  and  Jetsain. 


ttJXVRDA  Y  R E  VIE  W,  Eng. : 

w  Amusing  and  readable.  .  .  .  Among 
the  successful  books  of  this  order  must 
be  classed  that  which  Mr.  Bowles  has  re- 
cently offered  to  the  public." 
NEW  YOKK  WORLD.- 

"  This  series  of  reflections,  some  phil- 
osophic, othesa  practical,  and  many  hu- 
morous, make  a  cheerful  and  healthful 
little  volume,  made  the  more  valuable 
by  its  index." 

CENTRAL     METHODIST,    Cat- 
tlesbnrgh,  Ky.  : 

"  This  is  a  romance  of  the  sea,  and  is 
one  of  the  most  readable  and  enjoyable 
books  of  the  season." 
LUTHER  A  N  OBSERVER,  Phil. : 

"  The  cargo  on  this  wreck  must  have 
been  above  all  estimate  in  value.  How 
much  '  Jetsam '  there  may  be  we  cannot 
tell,  but  what  we  have  seen  is  fill '  Flot- 
sam,1 and  will  float  and  find  its  way  in 
enriching  influence  to  a  thousand  hearts 
and  homes." 

NEW  YORK  HERALD: 

"It  is  a  clever  book,  fnll  of  quaint 
conceits  and  deep  medit&Uon.  There 
Is  plenty  of  entertaining  f\nd  original 
thought,  and  '  Flotsam  and  Jetsam  '  is 
indeed  worth  reading." 

CHRISTIAN  ADVOCATE,  Nash- 

ville,  Tenn. : 

"Many  of  the  author's  comments  are 
quite  acute,  and  their  personal  tone  will 
give  them  an  additional  flavis-." 


METHODIST  RECORDER,  Pitts- 
burgh, Pa.  : 

"In  addition   to   the  charming  inci- 
dents related,  it  fairly  sparkles  with  fresh 
and  original  thoughts  which  cannot  fail 
to  interest  and  profit." 
GOOD  LITERATURE,  New  York: 

"...  Never  fails  to  amuse  and  inter- 
est, and  it  is  one  of  the  pleasantest  feat- 
ures of  the  book  that  one  may  open  it  at 
a  venture  and  be  sure  of  finding  gome- 
thing  original  and  readable." 
HERALD  AND  PRESBYTER, 
Cincinnati,  Ohio : 

"  His  manner  of  telling  the  story  of  his 
varied  observations  and  experiences,  with 
his  reflections  accompanying,  is  f  o  easy 
and  familiar,  as  to  lend  his  pages  a  fas- 
cination which  renders  it  almost  impos- 
sible to  lay  down  the  book  until  it  is  read 
to  the  end." 
NEW  YORK  LEDGER: 

"It  is  quite  out  of  the  usual  method  of 
books  of  travel,  and  will  bo  relished  all 
the  more  by  those  who  enjoy  bits  of 
quiet  humor  and  piquant  sketches  of 
men  and  things  on  a  yachting  journey." 
NEW  YORK  STAR: 

"Not  too  profound  for  entertainment, 
and  yet  pleasantly  suggestive.  A  volume 
of  clever  sayings." 

CHRISTIAN    SECRETARY, 
Hartford.  Conn.  : 

"It  is  a  book  well  worth  reading,  .  .  . 
full  of  thought." 


307 


PRESBYTERIAN     JOURNAL, 

Philadelphia : 

"A  racy,  original,  thoughtfnl  book. 
On  the  slight  thread  of  sea-voyaging  it 
hangs  the  terse  thoughts  of  an  original 
mind  on  many  subjects.  The  style  is  so 
spicy  that  one  reads  with  interest  even 
when  not  approving." 


CHRISTIAN  INTELLIGEN- 
CER, New  York  : 

"  No  one  can  spend  an  hour  or  two  in 
Mr.  Bowies'  gallery  of  graphic  pen-pict- 
ures without  being  so  deeply  impressed 
with  their  originality  of  conception  and 
lively,  spicy  expression,  as  to  talk  about 
them  to  others." 


VI. 


The  Highways  of  Literature. 


NATIONAL  BAPTIST,  Fhila. : 

"  A  book  full  of  wisdom ;  exceedingly 
bright  and  practical.1' 

PACIFIC    CHURCHMAN,    San 

Francisco : 

"  The  best  answer  we  have  seen  to  the 
common  and  most  puzzling  question, 
'  What  shall  I  read  ? '  Scholarly  and 
beautiful." 

D ANBURY  NEWS: 

"Its  hints,  rules,  and  directions  for 
reading  are,  just  now,  what  thousands 
of  people  are  needing." 

CHRISTIAN      WITNESS,     New- 
market, N.  H.  : 
"  Clear,  tei  se,  elegant  in  style.    A  boon 


to  young  students,  a  pleasure  for  schol- 
ars." 
NEW  YORK  HERALD: 

"Mr.  David  Pryde,  the  author  of 
'  Highways  of  Literature ;  or,  What  to 
Read,  and  How  to  Read,'  is  an  erudite 
Scotchman  who  has  taught  with  much 
success  in  Edinburgh.  His'  hints  on  the 
best  books  and  the  best  method  of  mas- 
tering them  are  valuable,  and  likely  to 
prove  of  grept  practical  use." 
NEW  YORK  TABLET: 

"  This  is  a  most  useful  and  interesting 
work.  It  consists  of  papers  in  which 
the  author  offers  rules  by  which  the 
render  may  discover  the  best  books,  and 
be  euabletfto  study  them,  properly." 


VII. 


Colin  Clout's  Calendar. 


LEEDS  MERCURY,  England  : 

"The  best  specimens  of  popular  sci- 
entific expositions    that  we  have   ever 
had  the  good  fortune  to  fall  in  with." 
NEW  YORK  NATION: 

"  The  charm  of  such  books  is  not  a 
little  heightened  when,  as  in  this  case, 
a  fe\v  touches  of  local  history,  of  cus- 
toms, words,  aii'l  places  are  added." 
AMERICAN  REFORMER,  New 

York: 

"There  certainly  is  no  deterioration  in 
the  quality  of  the  books  of  the  STANDARD 
LIBBABY.  This  book  consists  of  short 


chapters  upon  natural  history,  written 
in  an  easy,  fascinating  style,  giving  rare 
and  valuable  information  concerning 
trees,  plants,  flowers,  and  animals.  Such 
books  should  have  a  wide  circulation 
beyond  the  list  of  regular  subscribers. 
Some  will  criticise  the  author's  inclina- 
tion to  attribute  the  marvellous  thingf 
which  are  found  in  these  plants,  animals, 
etc.,  to  a  long  process  of  development 
rather  than  to  Divine  agency.  But  the 
information  is  none  the  less  valuable, 
whatever  may  be  the  process  of  these 
developments." 


fDINB  URGH  SCOTSMAN,  Scot 

land  : 

"  There  can  be  no  donbt  of  Grant 
Allen's  competence  as  a  writer  on  nat- 
ural history  subjects." 

NEW  YORK  HERALD: 

"  A  book  that  lovers  of  natural  history 
»il.  read  with  delight.  The  author  is 
euch  a -worshipper  of  mature  that  he 
gains  onr  sympathy  at  once." 

THE  ACADEMY,  London  : 

"  The  point  in  which  Mr  Grant  Allen 
is  beyond  rivalry  is  in  his  command  of 
language.  By  this  we  do  not  mean  only 
his  rich  vocabulary,  but  include  also  his 
arrangement  of  thought  and  his  manip- 
ulation of  sentences.  We  could  imagine 
few  better  lessons  to  a  pupil  of  Eng- 
lish than  to  be  set  to  analyze  and  explain 
the  charm  of  Mr.  Grant  Allen's  style." 

CANADIAN  BAPTIST,  Toronto  : 
"Mr.  Grant  Allen  is  one  of  the  few 
scientific  men  who  can  invest  common 
natural  objects  and  processes  with  poeti- 
cal beauty  and  make  them  attractive  to 
ordinary  readers." 


HERALD,  Monmouth,  Oregon  : 

"  A  wonderful  book  by  a  charming 
naturalist.  Lovers  of  flowers,  birds, 
plants,  etc.,  will  prize  this  volume  high- 
ly." 

NEW     YORK     JOURNAL     OF 
COMMERCE: 

"  A  charming  volume,  free  from  the 
taint  of  exaggeration  and  sensational- 
ism." 

INDIANAPOLIS  SEKTINEL: 

'•  He  is  as  keen  an  observer  as  Thoreau 
or  Burroughs." 

CHRISTIAN  STANDARD,  Cin- 
cinnati : 

"They  are  written  in  a  pleasant  and 
captivating  style,  and  contain  much  valu- 
able information.' ' 

METHODIST    PROTESTANT. 
BiUimore. 

"One   of   the   finest   productions  of 
modern  times." 
GOOD  LITERATURE,  New  York 

"  A  trustworthy  guide  in  natural  his- 
tory, as  well  as  a  delightful,  entertaining 
writer.!' 


VIII. 


George  Eliot's  Essays. 


THE  CRITIC,  New  York  : 

"  Messrs.  Funk  &  Wagnalls  have  done 
a  real  service  to  George  Eliot's  innumer- 
able admirers  by  reprinting  in  their 
popular  STANDARD  LIBRARY  the  great 
novelist's  occasional  contributions  to  the 
periodical  press." 
NEW  YORK  SUN: 

"In  the  case  of  George  Eliot  espe- 
cially, whose  reviews  were  anonymous, 
and  who  could  never  have  supposed  that 
such  fugitive  ventures  would  ever  be 
widely  associated  with  the  Lame  of  a 
diffident  and  obscure  young  woman,  we 
«ain  access  iu  her  early  essays,  as  in  no 
other  of  her  published  writing?,  to  the 
eanctuary  of  her  deepest  convictions,  and 
to  the  intellectual  workshop  in  which 


literary  methods  and  processes  were 
tested,  discarded,  or  approved,  and  liter- 
ary tools  fashioned  and  manipulated 
long  before  the  author  had  discerned  the 
large  purposes  to  which  they  were  to  be 
applied.  .  .  .  Looking  back  over  the 
whole  ground  covered  by  these  admira- 
ble papers,  we  are  at  no  loss  to  under- 
stand why  George  Eliot  should  have 
made  it  a  rule  to  read  no  criticisms  on 
her  own  stories.  She  had  nothing  to 
learn  from  critics.  She  was  ji^tifled  in 
assuming  that  not  one  (if  th.se  who  took 
upon  themselves  to  r.ppraise  her  :•. 
ments  had  given  half  of  the  time  or  a 
tithe  of  the  intellect,  to  the  determina- 
tion of  the  right  aims  and  processes  of 
the  English  novel  which  as  these  re- 


309 


views  attest,  she  had  herself  expended 
on  that  object  before  venturing  upon 
that  form  of  compos1  tion  which  Fielding 
termed  the  modern  epic." 
EX  A  MINER,  New  York  : 

"These  essays  ought  to  be  read  by 
any  one  who  would  understand  this 
part  of  George  Eliot's  career  ;  and,  in- 
deed, they  furnish  the  key  to  all  her 
subsequent  literary  achievements." 
BROOKLYN  DAILY  EAGLE: 

"It  is  rather  suprising  that  these  es- 
says have  not  been  collected  and  pub- 
lished before,  and  it  is  a  matter  of  con- 
gratulation that  they  are  now  issued." 
CHRISTIAN  ADVOCATE,  New 
York  : 

"  They  show  the  versatility  of  the  great 
novelist.    One  on  E van <.'•,•! :cal  Teaching 
is  especially  interesting." 
INDIANAPOLIS  SENTIfiEL: 

"Nathan  Shepherd's  introduction  to 
these  essays  is  worth  many  times  the 
price  of  the  volume." 
EPISCOPAL  METHODIST,  Bal- 
timore : 

"Everybody  of  culture  wants  to  read 
all  George  Eliot  wrote." 


NORTHERN  CHRISTIAN  AD' 

YOG  ATE,  Syracuse  : 
"The  compiler  of  this  collection  has 
done  a  unique  and  a  useful  work." 

METHODIST      PROTESTANT, 

Baltimore : 

"  They  comprise  some  of  the  best  at 
the  author's  writings." 

ZION'S  HERALD,  Boston  : 

"As  remarkable   illustrations  of  her 
masculine  metaphysical  ability  as  is  evi- 
denced in  her  strongest  fictions." 
CHURCH  UNION,  New  York  : 

"Nathan  Sheppard,  the  collector  of 
the  ten  essays  in  this  form,  has  written  a 
highly  laudatory  but  critical  introduction 
to  the  book,  on  her  'Analysis  of  Mo- 
tives,' arid  after  reading  it,  it  seems  to 
us  that  every  one  who  would  read  her 
works  profitably  and  truly,  should  first 
have  read  it." 

HARTFORD  EVENING  POST: 

"They  are  admirable  pieces  of  literary 
workmanship,  but  they  are  much  more 
than  that.  .  .  .  These  essays  are  triumphs 
of  critical  analysis  combined  with  epi- 
grammatic pungency,  subtle  irony,  and 
a  wit  that  never  seems  strained." 


IX. 


Charlotte  Bronte. 


DAILY  ADVERTISER,  Newark, 

N.  J. : 

"  There  was  but  one  Charlotte  Bronte, 
as  there  was  but  one  William  Shake- 
speare. To  write  her  life  acceptably  one 
must  have  made  it  the  study  of  years  ; 
have  studied  it  in  the  integrity  of  all  its 
relations,  and  considered  it  from  the 
broadest  as  well  as  from  the  narrowest 
aspect.  This  is  what  Mrs.  llolloway 
Las  done." 
ZION'S  HERALD,  Boston : 

"  This  well-written  sketch,  with  selec- 
tions from  her  writing?,  will  be  appre- 
ciated and  give  a  clear  idea  of  the  re- 
markable intellectual  ability  of  this 
gifted  but  heavily-burdened  woman." 


NEW    YORK   HERALD: 

"  There  are,  at  times,  nights  of  elo- 
quence that  rise  to  grandeur." 
BROOKLYN   DAILY  EAGLE: 

"  Managed  with  the  rare  ekill  we  might 
expect  at  the  hands  of  a  fuir-minOed 
woman  dealing  with  the  traits  ol'charac- 
ttr  and  the  actual  career  of  one  who, 
amid  extraordinary  circumstances  of 
adversity,  plodded  her  way  to  fame 
within  the  span  of  a  brief  lifetime." 
SOUTHERN  CHURCHMAN, 
Richmond,  Va. : 

"There  are  few  memoirs  more  sad 
than  those  of  this  gifted  woman  and  her 
Bisters.  An  interesting  vorame  at  the 
cheap  price  of  fifteen  cents." 


310 


JOURNAL  AND  MESSENGER, 

Cincinnati : 

"The  reader,  for  a  small  sum,  will 
obtain  quite  a  thorough  understanding 
of  the  characteristics  and  literary  abil- 
ity of  Miss  Bronte,  and  also  be  placed 
in  possession  of  some  of  her  rarest 
thoughts." 

EPISCOPAL  RECORDER,  Phil- 
adelphia : 

"  The  manner  in  which  the  reminis- 
cences are  narrated  is  very  agreeable, 


and  the  reader  wonders  how  so  fascinat- 
ing a  life-story  could  be  found  in  the 
prosy  confines  of  literature.  ...  A  thor- 
oughly enjoyable  style  of  description 
and  a  deep  sympathy  with  the  subject 
render  Mrs.  Holloway's  sketch  exceed- 
ingly readable." 

CENTRAL     CHRISTIAN     AD- 
VOCATE, St.  Louis  :  . 
"  The  book  will  be  welcomed  by  all 
lovers  of   pure   bibliographical  litera- 
ture." 


Sam  Hobart. 


DAILY  FREE  PRESS,  London, 
Ontario : 

"  The  continual  additions  made  to  the 
STANDAKD  LIBRARY  of  works  of  a  high 
order  is  evidence  that  the  reading  public 
can  easily  absorb  something  more  useful 
than  the  mere  novel.  .  .  .  The  latest 
issue  deals  with  the  life  of  a  railroad 
engineer— Sam  Hobart,  one  of  the  mill- 
ion men  who  are  employed  in  the  rail- 
way service"  of  America.  ...  It  is  a 
marvel  of  cheapness  and  biographical 
excellence." 
NEW  YORK  WORLD: 

"A  graphic  narrative    and  a  strong 
picture   of  a  life  full  of  heroism  and 
changes.    Full  of  encouragement,  and  as 
thrilling  as  a  romance. " 
GUARDIAN,  Truro,  Nova  Scotia: 

"  The  author's  object  in  writing  it  was 
to  portray  the  possibilities  of  happiness 
and  usefulness  within  the  reach  of  a 
workinirnun  content  to  fill  the  sphere  of 
usefulness  awarded  him,  and  willing  to 
lend  a  helping  hand  to  do  work  for  God 
and  humanity.  It  is  just  such  a  book  as 
we  would  like  to  see  in  the  hands  of  rail- 
road men." 

DANKURY  NEWS: 

"It  is  doubtful  if  any  working  person 
can  read  this  book,  and  not  become  a 
better  worker  and  a  better  man." 


EPISCOPAL  3IETBODIST,  Bal- 
timore' : 

"  A  charming  book.    All  railroad  men 
will  be  interested  in  it,  and  it  will  pay 
professional  men  to  read  it." 
CHRISTIAN    SECRETARY, 
Hartford,  Conn.: 

"  The  object  of  the  book  is  to  show 
how  happy  and  useful  a  workingman 
may  be,  if  content  in  his  work  and  will- 
ing to  do  well.  Writt-en  in  a  very  in- 
teresting way,  and  while  it  will  probably 
be  devoured  by  railroad  men,  it  will  af- 
ford very  pleasurable  reading  to  all." 
RELIGIOUS  HERALD,  Hart- 
ford, Conn.: 

"An  entertaining  book   designed  to 
aid  in  making  one  true  and  noble." 
LUTHERAN  OBSERVER,  Phila- 
delphia : 

"Dr.  Fulton  has  done  a  good  work 
in  writing  this  story  of  a  railroad  m:tn. 
It  is  a  genuine  record  of  heroic  fidelity 
to  duty.  Let  it  be  scattered  by  the 
thousands." 

CHURCH    ADVOCATE,    Harris- 
burgh  : 

"If  every  workingman  and  employer 
would  follow  its  principles,  the  sohition 
of  the  Labor  Question  would  be  near  at 
hand." 


311 


XI. 


Successful  Men. 


JOURNAL    OF    EDUCATION, 

Boston  : 

"  This  book  possesses  all  the  charm 
of  biography  of  distinguished  men, 
and  abounds  in  witty,  humorous,  and 
telling  anecdotes  and  illustrations." 

INTER-OCEAN,  Chicago  : 

"The  style  is  terse,  vigorous,  and 
pleasant,  abounding  in  sententious 
maxims,  which  are  well  calculated  to 
impress  young  readers.  Nowhere  have 
we  found  more  incentives  to  honorable 
living  so  delightfully  and  impressively 
told  than  in  this  volume.  If  it  could  be 
stuffed  into  every  boy's  satchel  as  he 
journeys  from  home  it  would  be  well." 

CHRISTIAN  UNION,  New  York  : 
"  We  cordially  commend  this  book  to 
young  men."  ^ 

YOUNG    CHU2^3HMAN,    Mil- 
waukee : 

"  Pull  of  good  maxims  and  sound 
advice  for  the  young." 

BROOKLYN  (N.Y.)  EAGLE: 
"  A  wonderfully  instructive  book." 

LUTHERAN      OBSERVER, 

Philadelphia  : 

"  Clear,  forcible,  pungent  —  nearly 
every  page  sparkles  with  fresh  illustra- 
tion or  a  pertinent  story." 

CHRISTIAN  SECRETAR Y, 

Hartford,  Ct.  : 

"Full  of  sound,  wise,  and  practical 
advice  to  all  young  men  of  all  occupa- 
tions. Written  with  an  earnest,  and 
noble  purpose  to  help  and  encourage 


our  youth.    It  is  placed  at  a  low  prie«, 
and  ought  to  have  a  wide  circulation." 
NEW  YORK  OBSERVER: 

"This  book  will  no  doubt  be  found 
helpful  to  those  who   apprehend   the 
truth  most  easily  when  presented  con- 
cretely and  in  a  pictorial  form." 
D ANBURY  NEWS,  Conn.  : 

"  Invaluable  to  the  youth  standing  on 
the  threshold  of  manhood." 
PRESBYTERIAN    JOURNAL, 
Philadelphia : 

"  Clear,  stirring,  convincing,  sug- 
gestive, and  highly  beneficial.'' 

ZION'S  HERALD,  Boston  : 

"  A  capital  book  to  place  in  the  hands 
of  young  men  commencing  a  business 
or  professional  career." 
EVENING    CHRONICLE,    New 
Orleans  : 

"An   excellent   book    of    its    kind. 
Pleasant  reading.   Contains  many  hints 
both  original  and  practical." 
OCCIDENT,  San  Francisco  : 

"Full  of  sprightly  and  interesting 
matter." 

CHRISTIAN  CHRONICLE, 
Montpelier  Vt. : 

"  Worth  many  times  its  price." 
PAGE  COURIER,  Luray,  Va.  : 

"  We  would  like  ^o  see  this  book  in 
the  hands  of  every  youth.  Its  truths 
are  so  forcibly  stated  that  they  cannot 
fail  to  impress  deeply  the  minds  of 
those  who  read  it.  High  as  we  prize 
our  copy,  we  will  loan  it  to  any  young 
man  who  will  promise  to  read  it." 


XII. 


JOURNAL     OF     COMMERCE, 

New  York  : 
"  One  of  the  freshest  of  the  series. 


Richard  A.  Proctor's  name  is  attached 
to  some  of  the  most  entertaining  papers 
in  the  volume." 


812 


CllJt  ISTIA  N  SECRETARY, 

Hartford,  Conn. : 

"  This  volume  is  replete  with  interest 
and  general  nformaiion  concerning  se- 
crets wrested  from  the  tight   grasp  of 
nature." 
THE  CRITIC,  New  York  : 

"Were we  to  act  upon  the  principle 
that  good  wine  needs  no  brush,  we 
should  certainly  forbear  praising  the 
'potable  gold'  presented  in  'Nature 
Studies.'  The  twenty-four  essays  are 
at  once  agreeable  reading  and  intellect- 
ually stimulative." 
Tf  ANBURY  (Ct.)  NEWS: 

"  Although  by  a  scientist,  the  book  is 
not  a  teacher  of  scepticisms.  Proctor 
believes  fully  in  the  existence  of  an  all- 
creating,  all-ruling  God.  But  his  views 
of  the  Creator  are  greater  than  ours,  be- 
cause his  knowledge  of  the  vastness  of 
time,  of  space,  and  of  creation  are 
greater  than  ours.  The  book  is  in- 
tensely interesting,  as  well  as  thor- 
oughly instructive." 
GOOD  LITERATURE,  New 
York  : 

"  Mr.  Allen  writes  most  delightfully 
in  this  volume  .  .  .  showing  always 
a  most  thorough  sympathy  with  nature 
in  all  her  subtle  provisions  for  the  sup- 
port of  her  favorite  children." 
SCHOOL  JO  URNAL,  New  York  : 

"  Richard  A.  Proctor  is  the  editor-in- 
chief  of  this  volume,  and  this  fact  is  a 
guarantee  of  merit  in  the  contents.  .  .  . 
There  is  the  greatest  variety  in  subjects, 
and  the  reader  is  sure  of  genuine  in- 
tellectual entertainment  wherever  he 
opens  the  book." 


METHODIST  RECORDER, 

Pitisburg  : 

"  These  eminent  naturalists  give  us  in 
this  volume  mar.y  articles  as  interesting 
and  as  exciting  as  a  story  in  human 
life,  and  there  is  not  one  that  will  dis- 
appoint the  most  dull  reader.  The 
theories  advanced  iu  some  of  the  articles 
will  probably  not  be  accepted,  but  will 
be  of  interest  to  show  the  light  in 
which  these  theories  are  held  by  their 
advocates." 

CHURCH   ADVOCATE,    Harris- 
burg,  Pa. : 
"  This  is  a  valuable  book." 

PRESS  YTERIA  N  JO  URNAL, 

Philadelphia  : 

"These  essays  are  intensely  enter- 
taining and  attractive.  In  reading  one 
should  always  carefully  discriminate 
between  the  facts  and  the  hypotheses  of 
the  scientists.  The  volumes  of  this 
series  are  admirable  for  summer  read- 
ing." 

CHRISTIAN  JOURNAL,  Toron- 
to, Ont.  : 

"The  essays  bristle  with  indisputa- 
ble and  most  interesting  facts." 

o-'  ION     ItlltLE      TEACHER, 

Portland,  Maine : 

"  It  is  worthy  of  remark  when  such  a 
work  as  this  can  be  bought  for  this 
price." 

PRESBYTERIAN      WITNESS, 

Halifax,  N.  S.  : 

' '  A  large  amount  of  valuable  reading 
from  five  of  the  greatest  scientists  of  • 
the  day." 


India,  What  Can  it  Teach  Us  ? 


THE  GLOBE,  Boston  : 

"  To  judge  of  the  value  of  Funk  & 
Wagnalls"  Standard  Library,  one  may 
take  up  an  issue  at  random,  each  one 
of  the  scries  thus  far  being  very  choice. 
But  in '  India  :  What  Can  it  Teach  L's  ?' 


Its  most  scholarly  work  is  published.  It 
contains  some  of  the  richest  fruits  of 
Max  Muller's  life-long  study  of  Sanscrit 
literature.  Such  an  instructive  work  at 
so  low  a  price  ought  to  be  eagerly  seized 
upon." 


UUSB    LIBKAKY 


,,,U,S,^H.™  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FA! 


